War!
What is it good for?
Business...
The British government is publicly threatening to stop giving defence contracts to American aerospace firm Boeing – even though this is laughably unrealistic. Both the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have, over the last couple of days, warned Boeing that it is undermining its relationship with the UK, in financial …
Go with Easyjet, their aircraft are Airbus
Not just that.
SleasyJet plan to still fly after B-day and have a rather Sleasy plan revolving around the dual cittizenship of their major shareholder (I wonder how long until this is shot down by regulators one way or another).
Ryanair has no plan B for B day - they have openly stated that they intend to relocate all flights out of Stansted and cancel all internal UK flights.
Boeing accusing someone else of getting government subsidies is pretty much the height of hypocrisy. hell all the aircraft manufacturers get subsidies, the Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, the Indians, the Americans, everyone does. Aircraft are bloody expensive to build, and its a hell of a lot of cost up front, long time to profit, and they will employ a shedload of People. It's no surprise they get subsidies.
But the fact they are all starting to sue each other in the WTO (and other trade bodies) is just annoying. The only people getting rich are the lawyers...
If Bombardier collapses, then Boeing will probably be in line to buy up the remains for the patents and intellectual property associated with the C Series jets. That would be a win-win situation for them, i.e. Boeing wins twice.
If Bombardier collapses, then Boeing will probably be in line to buy up the remains for the patents and intellectual property associated with the C Series jets. That would be a win-win situation for them, i.e. Boeing wins twice.
Alternatively, they could get outbid by an upstart Chinese manufacturer with an eye on buying a set of ready-to-build aircraft designs, and a then Boeing lose big-time as the market gets flooded with cheap aircraft and no amount of complaints from Boeing will have any effect.
So yeah, there's plenty of ways this could go bad for Boeing.
Alternatively, they could get outbid by an upstart Chinese manufacturer
Except they have friends in Washington that can block the sale to any chinese investor.
Amazing what a good deal you can get when all other bidders are blocked
This post has been deleted by its author
>No it is not. Airbus is fairly clear it is next in line
Airbus is building the A320 in Alabama now - US and China is where they're investing as that's the only way to sell there - EU plants will be a shadow ten years hence.
Indeed. For them to say it's not fair because Airbus got government seed capital is disingenuous. They can huff and puff all they like about level playing fields when it is as clear as day to anyone not totally partisan that Boeing does everything it can to ensure the playing field is not level. In their case, they use their lobbyists to ensure that their Congressmen will vote a collective "wrong answer" if any tender decision favours a non-US supplier. Europe may well provide subsidies to get their manufacturers underway, but Boeing and other major suppliers use underhanded methods to subvert tender processes that provide like-for-like comparisons that end up deciding on a non-US supplier. They ensure that any decision that comes up with a decision in favour of a non-US supplier will be appealed til the end of time. (BTW: I have not yet heard whether the European startup subsidies are required to subsequently be repaid at more-or-less commercial rates. It would not surprise me in the least if the US manufacturers' lobbyists ignore this.)
So, Gareth, are you suggesting that Bombardier should shut up and accept a 220% tax on their sales to the US, even though Boeing have no comparable aircraft to the C series, and therefore there is no valid conflict of interest?
Do you think that the British government should not protest such a blatant misuse of power?
"no comparable aircraft to the C series, and therefore there is no valid conflict of interest"
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.
Boeing may not have a "100-110 seat aircraft" as Bombardier are claiming. But if Bombardier's aircraft wasn't available then passengers would fly on slightly smaller or slightly larger aircraft from other manufacturers. There might be slightly more or less flights per week and at slightly more or less cost per flight, but the difference will be small. So Boeing definitely competes with the C series. And if the C series was receiving illegal subsidies that would clearly be bad for Boeing.
The people complaining about Boeing's interference may have other valid points, but this one is clearly nonsense and makes me distrust anyone who's spouting it.
>even though Boeing have no comparable aircraft to the C series
....but they had been supplying Delta with rebuilt Embraer E-190s.
The case actually hinged on the fact that during the last Bombardier bailout the Quebec Government bought a 40-odd % stake in C-Series for $1 billion - that's on the back of another couple of billion in Canadian Gov subsidies in recent years. This doesn't seem to get much reporting in the UK.
That Shorts (The NI plane maker now part of Bombardier) did once build long range heavy lift transports for the RAF. But of course, that was a long time ago, before the traitors of Westminster painstakingly and completely dismantled the vast majority of our indigenous aerospace capability. Either by outright cancellations, by early retirements, by preferring crap, expensive multinational junk. Funny to think British engineers developed brilliant machines like the Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Bucaneer, TSR-2, Harrier, Hawk, Belfast, Nimrod, the Lynx (early ones, at any rate). But now what indigenous capability is there? I daresay Taranis will soon be cancelled "to save money" so that MoD can then buy some expensive foreign product a few short years later.
Now that the tosspot clowns of the British government look round, and find they've got nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing, they might care to note that it is ALL THEIR FAULT for years of dithering, poor decisions, a total lack of strategic judgement, and persistent under-investment in a military whom they routinely call upon when they're in a fix (invariably of their own making).
Sukhoi, Tupolev, Ilyushin
Dassault, Saab and worst case scenario we can import some fresh tea from the colonies, like for example the Hindustan Aviation TEJAS. It will make for a nice "cuppa" on Queen Lizzy's deck if it is finally fitted with some arrester wires.
On a more serious note - we are financing the Ukrainian cleptocracy anyway, we might as well get some fecking Antonovs out of it. There is no way anyone can convince me that a C17 is more capable than An124. So instead of paying them to "improve democracy" how about paying them to unmothball the An124 production line or even better - disassemble it and ship it to Belfast.
how about paying them to unmothball the An124 production line or even better - disassemble it and ship it to Belfast.
Given how well our lovely government have negotiated defence contracts in recent decades, I expect they'd cock it up and get the An2 production line unmothballed and shipped to Belfast by mistake.
Beautiful aircraft, but not quite up to spec for modern heavy lift.
There's Airbus and Lockheed-Martin.
Both foreign corporations that the UK cannot really rely on, and with little product overlap with the Boeing offers that are relevant here.
Airbus don't know what they're doing. The A400M has been a financial disaster, is barely ready for military use, with Airbus asking to be let off the penalty clauses in the contracts it signed. In the words of John Gilbert in the House of Lords ""The A400M is a complete, absolute wanking disaster, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. I have never seen such a waste of public funds in the defence field since I have been involved in it these past 40 years."
Maybe Lockheed Martin are better? They are kindly willing to sell us their F35 POS, but require us to let them do maintenance in increasingly authoritarian and erratic Turkey. Even ignoring the project problems, that maintenance requirement is a super idea for defence resilience, eh?
'They are kindly willing to sell us their F35 POS, but require us to let them do maintenance in increasingly authoritarian and erratic Turkey.'
There are clauses that allow them to relocate the depth maintenance facility to another location, the UK is I think first choice in the event of Turkey becoming more of a basket case. To be fair 10+ years ago when the decision was made Turkey seemed like a great idea, and they've actually got a good record on locally producing F-16s.
we could put a whole plane together with enough government subsidy
80% of the budget will be spent on committee meetings determining what colour it should be, and the remaining 80% on committee meetings to determine the composition of the aforementioned committees.
Not a widely-known fact, but the UK is the world's second largest aerospace nation after the US. Sadly, we can't really build a whole plane on our own any more.
As for Boeing buggering the British aviation sector, it's been going on for decades. It would be nice to finally know the truth about all those one-sided technology 'exchanges' of the 1960s when Boeing engineers were allowed by the British government to see everything about the DH121 trijet and the HS134 narrow-body long-range twinge which both look uncannily like the much later Boeing 727 and 757 airliners.
"The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the fourth-largest national aerospace industry in the world and the third largest in Europe, with a global market share of 6.4% in 2016".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom
@Mike Richards
Hopefully more widely known facts.
Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of aerospace products during 2016:
United States: US$134.6 billion (41% of total aerospace exports)
France: $53.4 billion (16.2%)
Germany: $44.6 billion (13.6%)
United Kingdom: $21 billion (6.4%)
Canada: $10.3 billion (3.1%)
Singapore: $6.7 billion (2%)
Japan: $5.1 billion (1.6%)
Spain: $5.1 billion (1.5%)
Italy: $4.9 billion (1.5%)
Brazil: $4.8 billion (1.5%)
Ireland: $4.1 billion (1.2%)
China: $3.4 billion (1%)
India: $3 billion (0.9%)
Netherlands: $2.6 billion (0.8%)
Israel: $2.4 billion (0.7%)
The listed 15 countries shipped 93.1% of global aerospace exports in 2016 by value.
From a continental perspective, North America accounted for the highest dollar value worth of aerospace exports during 2016 with shipments amounting to $145.5 billion (44.3% of global total). In second place were European Union exporters at 43.3%
http://www.worldstopexports.com/aerospace-exports-by-country/
We do make Airbus wings on Deeside. And jet engines at Derby. Theres probably quite alot of other stuff we do as well.
Oh there is. My original post might suggest otherwise, but I don't believe we've lost this country's engineering talent, and you're right to point up the expertise in wings, engines. I suspect that for all the brickbats, BAES are very good on airframes and manufacturing, Augusta Westland have world class skills in helicopter design, MBDA have cutting edge experience in missile design down at Filton, and so on. My moan was that as a nation we've lost a lot of control over how those skills can be used, the control exercised by MoD produces persistently wrong outcomes, and as a result we've apparently lost the capability to build a high quality indigenous aircraft. If a country the size of Sweden (about the same population as Greater London and suburbs) can knock out the hugely impressive Gripen on their own, then we could certainly make out own. The persistent, long term and enduring failure of MoD and government to sort out UK made strike aircraft, heavy transport helicopters, and carrier aircraft is unforgivable - we should find those responsible for the decisions, and publicly hang them on the Embankment, so that MPs and MoD employees can see the corpses dangling in the wind (maybe send a few to be hanged outside the front door of MoD Procurement at Abbey Wood in Bristol as well).
And one other thought, in the light of the Chinook bungling by MoD in the last decade. Back in 1952, the UK actually had an indigenous tandem rotor helicopter, the Bristol Belvedere, developed largely as a commercial venture. As ever, a few military sales but the cancellations of orders, and no visionary interest from the MoD. Had that been supported, then future developments would have meant that there wasn't only once choice for heavy lift helicopters.
Airbus don't know what they're doing. The A400M has been a financial disaster, is barely ready for military use, with Airbus asking to be let off the penalty clauses in the contracts it signed. In the words of John Gilbert in the House of Lords ""The A400M is a complete, absolute wanking disaster, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. I have never seen such a waste of public funds in the defence field since I have been involved in it these past 40 years."
I can only assume that he was suffering long term memory loss at the time since i myself can remember(and in fact worked on some of these) Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, Tornado ADV, to name but 3.
At least the A400M will be operational, available and provide much needed air lift capabilities. unlike the Nimrod which only resulted in providing museums with exhibits
If we want to talk success and failures may I point you to the Airbus A330 multi role tanker which has been a fantastic successful program, especially compared to the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus equivalent whose development has been no where near as smooth
And another one.
BAe do build small jets in partnership and EADS has the A400M. Given that BAe took over nearly all of the British aircraft factories and design/development resources, there is a severe lack of capability now. BAe only seems to care about long term service contracts, not developing new aircraft to RAF specifications.
Whilst I can agree with you in principle - did you really have to use The Short Brothers as your example? TSB stood for Those Shitty Bastards for more years than I can remember. If it was possible to fuck something up on an aircraft you could count on them to find the way to do it...
To the contrary.
It was the MoD (and it's predecessors) blind faith that the UK needed a "National Champion" that allowed (and in some cases forced) the wholesale merging of the UK military aircraft industry.*
Behold the magnificence that is BAe Systems!
And let us not forget the 23000 men and women of MoD Procurement.
The f**king delusional bu***hit heroic vision of the 1957 Defense Review under the Conservative Defense Minister Duncan Sandys (no aircraft, all missile) also helped put the UK military aircraft industry in the place it is today.
"The f**king delusional bu***hit heroic vision of the 1957 Defense Review under the Conservative Defense Minister Duncan Sandys (no aircraft, all missile) also helped put the UK military aircraft industry in the place it is today."
Similar occurrence in Canada. The US conned a gullible Diefenbaker into scrapping the Avro Arrow and buying Bomarc missiles, which a subsequent gov't refused to arm with nukes. American aerospace companies set up hiring halls in nearby motels after the cancellation and many Canadians ended up in the US space program and aircraft industries. The Arrow may not have been perfect but it had many new developments that could have led to better subsequent fighters. Instead we bought crap Voodoos.
Now Boeing wants to screw us again.
To the contrary. It was the MoD (and it's predecessors) blind faith that the UK needed a "National Champion" that allowed (and in some cases forced) the wholesale merging of the UK military aircraft industry.
You're correct, but I don't think that is contrary to my point, I think it is all part of the same thing. It is the UK bunglement that encouraged the formation of BAES (with much of its roots in Labour's idiotic nationalisation programmes of the past), the same government that has specified that it actually WANTS aircraft to be international collaborations, and has got itself to a point that it now believes its purpose is to micro-massage the specifications of what it does buy to the point that the resulting product is (a) too expensive for export, (b) takes twice as long to become available for export, and (c) doesn't actually do what people want. Bunglement also have contributed hugely to the consolidation of the industry by their incompetent boom and bust procurement, utterly naieve about the need to keep a sustainable industry (in aircraft, missiles, helicopters, ships or army equipment, too). What they should have been doing (since forever) is phasing specification, design and build programmes across training, close support strike, stand off strike, air defence, transport, tanker, AEW & surveillance requirements.
Look at a continuing, if ageing British success story the Hawk. Started off in 1968 as a commercial venture by Hawker Siddeley (because they saw that the MoD's preferred option of the international collaborative Jaguar had turned out too big, too complicated and far too expensive) . Designed by blokes using pencils, paper and slide rules, they came up with a brilliant little jet with stonking performance that's been licensed to both the Yanks and to India, and many hundreds have been built, and in service with around 20 countries round the globe. The critical success factors (above pure engineering talent) were that although intended to meet a UK military need, it was built as a commercial project, it didn't have the albatross of the MoD round its neck, micro-managing every aspect and regularly changing the specification, and it was the creation of a single design team in a single country.
The f**king delusional bu***hit heroic vision of the 1957 Defense Review under the Conservative Defense Minister Duncan Sandys
A name I recognise from R.V.Jones' "Most Secret War", in which he is portrayed not very positively.
they might care to note that it is ALL THEIR FAULT for years of dithering, poor decisions
No, no - you have it all wrong. Any mistakes in the past are quite clearly 'the fault of the previous government' and nothing whatsoever to do with the current incumbents.
Even if they were part of the previous administration.
Politics. Where teflon would be seen as an unacceptably high friction substance and memories are often conveniently short.
'Funny to think British engineers developed brilliant machines like the Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Bucaneer, TSR-2, Harrier, Hawk, Belfast, Nimrod, the Lynx'
I'm not sure I've ever seen the Belfast included on a list of brilliant machines before. It was so slow on one proving flight the pilot messaged to the effect that 'there are no signs of scurvy yet.' when proceeding across the Indian Ocean.
The TSR-2 was brilliant on paper, there were a lot of issues still to be overcome when it was scrapped.
As far as I know the Bombardier CSeries is not really competing with the 737 as the smallest 737 is much bigger than the biggest CSeries. If anything the CSeries is competing for the slot that is currently taken by older AVRO and Fokker aircraft and by contemporary Embraer models.
This is relevant because it makes Boeing's complaint more interesting as their concern doesn't seem to be about direct competition for their own aircraft but rather as if they don't like a company to grow to a stage where they may become a competitor.
As far as I know the Bombardier CSeries is not really competing with the 737 as the smallest 737 is much bigger than the biggest CSeries. If anything the CSeries is competing for the slot that is currently taken by older AVRO and Fokker aircraft and by contemporary Embraer models.
Some and some. The CS300 is rated for 130-160pax depending on configuration (1 or 2 classes). This compares very evenly with the 737 MAX-7 (130-172pax) or the older 737-700/800. 6000km range is -ishly comparable also.
The CS100 overlaps with the Embraer E-2s, but most Embraers are smaller (<100pax) and not really comparable.
As you say, Bombardier are a small player but unlike Embraer (who have been content to mostly play with smaller regional/domestic-service models), Bombardier have come straight in with a larger product which is no doubt why Boeing are taking more of an interest of whether they're going to get ideas of developing stretched variants or larger models running up to 230pax which would tread significantly on their toes.
Boeing have come right out and told the press in Canada that it's not really about Bombardier's current planes. Boeing didn't even bid on the Delta contract they're complaining about, because all their planes were too large. This by the way is a major reason why a number of trade experts expect the Boeing complaint to get tossed out later in the process (they've yet to prove "harm").
The actual issue is Airbus, and Boeing executives are still arguing over whose "fault" it was for not killing Airbus before they became a serious competitor. They're now trying to kill off Bombardier now rather than waiting for them to design planes which do compete directly with Boeing.
What they're apparently really looking for is a carve up of the global market, with other companies agreeing to Boeing getting 50% of the global market for large jets. They see Embraer and the Chinese companies also growing, and they want to limit them as well.
Bombardier has close partnerships with the Chinese aircraft industry, and these latest events are expected to push them closer together. A big sale of CSeries jets in China is expected shortly, the announcement possibly to be timed to coincide with the Canadian PM's visit to China later this year.
As for the whole premise behind the Reg story itself, someone's had a few too many beers with Boeing's PR reps. Nobody has suggested that either the UK or Canada are going to scrap their existing Boeing kit overnight and replace it with stuff bought elsewhere. Instead Boeing's salesmen are going to find that the DND and MoD aren't going to be in a rush to return their phone calls about new sales.
Canada is in the process of replacing and expanding their fleet of jet fighters, and have told Boeing that if they don't back down they can forget about being allowed to bid (many considered them to be a shoe in until this cropped up). May has stuck her oar into the situation to make sure that the UK's interests are preserved if Canada and Boeing come to some sort of understanding as a result of this. Now that she's involved and offered her support, Canada will have to consult with her before doing anything that jeopardises jobs in the UK.
Typical Boeing, whenever they lose a big contract, they complain, as per the USAF tanker refueling KC-X program - Airbus with Northrop Grumann won, Boeing protested and then won the resulting contract! Same with the F22, it's generally agreed that the F23 was the better aircraft in every aspect except for extreme low speed maneuverability. But again Boeing was part of the F22 so guess which aircraft won!
Rather call it a Canadian family company as the family still controls 60% of the company. A problem for the Canadian government when giving them state subsidies. May may huff and puff (and should) but it's a case between a US and a Canadian company and should be dealt with accordingly. The 220% is of course ridiculous. The company has an interesting history with ski-doo and what not.
Yep, that was his visit to a 787 plant in South Carolina where he burbled on and on about 'Jerbs!' This June Boeing laid off 200 workers from the plant.
Boeing had previously slurped up more than $1 billion in 'incentives' from South Carolina. Of which more than $300 million was in the form of direct tax breaks.
"The 220% is of course ridiculous."
Boeing actually suggested "only" 80% duty in their original complaint filing. The U.S. Department of Commerce itself inflated that to 220%.
It would be interesting to know what calculus the DoC used to arrive at this because, according to Bombardier, "more than half of the [CSeries] jet's components are made by U.S.-based companies, and the jet's manufacturing supports more than 22,000 jobs across 17 U.S. states". Someone's foot has a nice red laser dot on it.
You can probably kiss a good chunk of the 4000 jobs in Ireland gone.
What Twitler and company don't understand is that there are another 6000 jobs in the US that depend on the C Series.
Experts say Boeing has nothing as good as the C Series in it's class.
Finally, Boeing is reminding me of Twitler. If he can't get his way he makes changes to the rules [like dropping the senate approval to 50 votes from 60].
Other governments as well as airlines also object to this phoney tariff.
No surprise that Boeing is fighting dirty - the 737 is out of date compared to the existing A320 family, and for passengers the 737 Max won't particularly improve the situation.
The piddly 737 cabin width means that (in economy) seat width is only 17 inches, compared to 18 1/2 in the A320s and C-Series. Windows are small and low, overhead compartments cramped and the plane is noisier than the competition. The 737 fuselage won't be getting any wider, just longer.
You'd have to be outstandingly noncompetitive to need a 220% tariff over a competitor from a nation with a similar level of economic development. A few % tariff to level the field is understandable, but not 220%. Is there a historic precedent for this level of tariff between (previously) friendly nations? If there is, I'm sure it was countered with reverse tariffs.
It almost looks like Trump is a puppet of globalists who are instructing him to really foul things up so they can usher in their one world government system in reaction to his planned failures.
The only question is whether the UK should join the Non Aligned Movement pre or post brexit? Then they could buy their "defence" equipment from anywhere.
And with the UK's love of democracy, being in the same club as two thirds of the UN countries has got to be good ;)
On 2 February 2017, Boeing stated it would bid the KC-46A for the Royal Canadian Air Force's Strategic Tanker Transport Capability competition, a project to replace Canada's fleet of CC-150 Polaris tanker aircraft. The contract is valued at C$1.5+ billion.[97]
-Wikipaedia
Hey, Boeing, good luck with that......
I thought US and Canada were in NAFTA
The North American Free Trade Agreement
does this not violate the agreement?
plus HMG killed the whole aerospace industry by changing the goalposts constantly on every project eventually bancrupting the smaller plaers that them got swallowed by BAe Systems.
...you don't tend to get huge swings against unpopular parties. Voting patterns are still horribly tribal and sectarian. The DUP wouldn't lose those seats if Boeing sent a Dreamliner to circle Belfast trailing a banner saying "Up yours, Ulster!" So the posturing is even /more/ meaningless than the piece suggests.