Further to the post by Distiller, I was wondering to what extent people in the air force appreciate being called a bunch of cheats by Boeing (because this is what the Boeing article does) and whether people in the air force appreciate the attempt to have the 767 forced-fed upon them?? Could this affect the relationship between Boeing and the Air force???

I suppose I could comment on this article myself but its content (basically, the Air force study concluded that the 767 was 3 to 5 times superior to the 330) is so laughable that it isn’t even worthy of anyone’s time.

Again, it’s clear that many Euorpean nations have chosen projects based on local employment (among other factors), the U.S. should be free to do that as well.

No one ever argued that the US should not be free to chose a project based on local employment.

But if this the key criteria, then I would suggest you refrain from inviting a foreign company to respond to a bid that is officially open and spend millions in the process. Call this probity or rectitude, if you wish.

Hopefully, then, Europeans will come up with the same criteria. No F-16, F-18, F-35, C-130… when there is a European alternative and even if this alternative does not meet the needs as well as the US product.

And, as others have stressed, what riles some Europeans is not so much that you come up with that national criteria, it is the need to trash the competing company that many in the US seem to have (ie Airbus is a corrupt company, Airbus products are crap anyway (scarebus), Airbus is half russian, et al.).

As I understand it choosing those engines, and I suppose the argument is valid for other items and hardware as well, (also) had to do with the fact that if they wanted to sell the A400M to other countries Airbus would need permission from the country the engine came from.
And Airbus thought it would be easier if everything on the plane was European and they wouldn’t be dependent on countries that didn’t have an interest in Airbus for export clearances.

Exactly, one of the main concern was not to fall foul of ITAR regulation. That would have fully applied to a GE canada engine and would have given Washington the capacity to rule on every single export of A400Ms.

CASAs planes have already fallen foul of such regulations.

179 aircraft and 20000 staff sold to Air France for just 138 mn Euros.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7299203.stm

More consolidation. Another flag-carrier down the tubes. What next?

Euhh, I thought the point was precisely that Alitalia would retain its name and part of its independance, as KLM did or as Swiss does under Lufthansa !!

Sorry, I didn’t intend to be cheap or senseless.

I would buy your argument if you could show me a performance benefit to the FBW. Is the A320 clearly superior in terms of fuel burn per seat/operating cost? .

FBW has several advantages, not necessarily in terms of fuel burn per seat, but in terms of maintenance and in terms of training/commonality with other aircraft from the same manufacturer.

That said, I am entirely willing to admit that I have not really proven that point (I dont have the total operating costs of both airframe at hand). Yet, I will repeat what I said first: both manufacturers make decent products, and the choice depends in large part on other factors than the simple intrinsic value of the plane. It can make more sense for some companies to operate the B-737 (because they already operate the older generation and there is a degree of economic inertia that will lead you to keep operating the same plane) while for others the A320 can make more sense as they also operate 330s and 340s (thereby saving on maintenance, training…).

Several companies operate both the 777 and the 330 because each plane has specific characteristics that make them most efficient for specific segment of the market. Whether they chose one or the other or both depends more on their market need than the intrinsic value of the plane.

I will grant you, however, that with the progress in terms of ETOPS, the A340 makes less and less sense, and is doomed in the fairly short term.

I believe the performance of the airplanes are very similar, almost the same, nothing like the efficiency advantage that the twin 777 has over the quad A340 (before you even count that the 777 diverts almost exactly half as often as the A340, according to Boeing figures). I’m a believer that technology has to pay its way onto the airplane.

1) Will you be willing to accept information from Airbus that shows that their product is better than Boeing??
2) Could you post the information that demonstrates that the 777 diverts half as often as the A340 ? When I see the number of times Air France 777s only have diverted over the past few months, I am somehow sceptical but willing to be proven otherwise if you can post verifiable data.

Is there any likelihood of that happening????

How could Airbus put in such a low bid for the plane if it was not funded other ways?

Let me translate what you are saying in plain words: how can a non-US company performs better than a US company unless it cheats.

Well, even if you dont want to hear it and probably can’t even fathom it, here it is: sometimes foreign companies do outperform US companies and provides more appropriate products, and without cheating. That has proven true in the autombile market and it is the case in this tanker case.