Here we go again - Boeing - Airbus - USAF tanker

[smokejumper]

Flight International is reporting that Airbus' analysis of Boeing's 787 program may impact its' consideration for the forthcoming USAF tanker procurement. See: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... amers.html

Airbus’s Boeing 787 dossier could have wider implications for both airframers
By Jon Ostrower
The revelation that Airbus has compiled a detailed dossier about the shortcomings of Boeing's 787 programme - apparently sourced from internal proprietary data and suppliers - could have a wider implications for both airframers.

The publication of alleged "Boeing Proprietary" information in an Airbus document could affect Northrop Grumman's attempt to rebid - with Airbus parent EADS as a partner - against Boeing to replace the US Air Force tanker fleet.

Former Aerospace Industries Association president John Douglass believes that this episode could have a material impact on the US Department of Defense's decision-making process.

"Obviously our government is concerned about these things and wants to see all the contractors perform in an ethical way, so it could be an issue," Douglass says. "On the other hand this could be just some charts somebody got."

Boeing's congressional allies will use this revelation to paint Airbus as "not an acceptable or trustworthy transatlantic partner when it comes to defence technology", says Richard Aboulafia, vice-president of analysis at the Teal Group.

Much of the Airbus dossier was drawn from sources across the aerospace industry, including Boeing customers and suppliers, with some cited specifically by name. Supplier "firewalls" between rival programmes have always been legally fortified through non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property protections, yet this dossier highlights the fine line that first-tier suppliers walk when serving clients with competing products.

Spirit AeroSystems, first tier supplier to both 787 and A350 programmes, is cited in the Airbus report and insists it is unaware of how Boeing proprietary data was communicated to Airbus.

In the near term, the Airbus report adds additional clarity to what is suspected to be an additional six-month delay to the 787 programme, pushing entry into service to early in the third quarter 2010 - over two years later than the original May 2008 target. Boeing is expected to issue updated guidance in mid-December.

[achace]

Dont see this being an issue.
Either the USA cant afford a new tanker, or they cant afford to place a contract overseas.
No matter how undeserving, IMHO a win for Booeing.

[tolipanebas]

IMO, Jon is very bussy hyping his find...

Let's recap the elements of the story:
Jon has received an Airbus PPT presentation with a very well-made summary of the current depressing state of the 787 program, as well as a very brief factual and apparently fully correct technical explanation of the reasons for this. Nothing more, nothing less...

Intersting reading for a day or so, but for the last week, he's been constantly trying to hype his find as if he has laid hands on a very explosive top secret file full of classified information on the 787 and is constantly hinting and suggesting unethical behaviour by Airbus!

To me it looks like Jon has enbarked on some kind of a 'political mission' here, i.e to show how bad Airbus is.

A reality check quickly unveils the PPT file is not a lively dossier like he tries to make us believe it is, it is just a 30 min summary of the many already known technical problems the 787 has encountered, conveniently summed up for the purpose of briefing to Airbus salesmen who deal with potential A350 customers, so as to make sure they all know where the competition is currently (standing still) at...
It contains nothing top secret and makes use of no sources other than Airbus' own technical insights in these widely reported problems, combined with verifiable facts as reported to them by 787 customers and first hand slides from Boeing itself, which were apparently used by the US manufacturer itself during meetings with contractors and customers.... In short: This is the type of PPT presentation which is regularly made in just a couple of hours for the monthly salesmen market update briefing by Airbus... The fact that it happened to end up in Jon's mailbox is the only thing specially noteworthy about it...

Is the US really to base their tanker decision on the fact Airbus -just like any other commerical enterprise- compiled a folder with public information on the competing products? I don't think so, although for a country which was so sure Iraq had huge stocks of WMD based on ridiculously weak CIA intelligence reports, a 'no nonsense' PPT file like this must indeed constitute overwhelming evidence of industrial espionage on the grand scale...

[bits44]

The fact that Jon brought this to light in his article is not really relevant, it's the fact that Airbus published it.

The publication of alleged "Boeing Proprietary" information in an Airbus document could affect Northrop Grumman's attempt to rebid - with Airbus parent EADS as a partner - against Boeing to replace the US Air Force tanker fleet.

The information may be stale, or accessible pretty much anywhere if one really digs for it, but as Jon points out along with other analysts it's the fact that one of the prime bidders of the tanker contract has exposed themselves as a entity that may be less than trustworthy on matters of military security.

It's all a matter of perception, and the U.S. Government gets really touchy on matters of national security, so this certainly doesn't put Airbus in a good light.

[tolipanebas]

The fact that Jon brought this to light in his article is not really relevant, it's the fact that Airbus published it.

But the thing is they DID NOT publish it like you say, they've used it in an internal document, which was distributed by a third party without their approval...

Knowing where your competitor screwed things up big isn't illegal you know!

Besides, I fail to understand why FI has been focussing for over a week on the alleged lack of business ethics from Airbus (for simply trying to find out as much as possible as soon as possible on the competitor's program), whereas it has left fully uncovered a potentially much more interesting fact we have learnt thanks to the Airbus PPT: the method used by Boeing to bold together their 787 apparently violates a BAe patent, now held by Airbus! Why not elaborate a bit on that? Is the claim true? Does Boeing know? Why is Boeing violating intelectual property of others? What will Airbus do about it, since they clearly know about it? Can they halt the production line of the 787 should they want to? Etc.. etc...
I mean: IF true, Airbus could hold the keys to the 787 assembly line in their pocket and they can shut down the line at any time and for a very long time... yet FI doesn't deem this interesting enough to dig deeper into????

It's all a matter of perception, and the U.S. Government gets really touchy on matters of national security, so this certainly doesn't put Airbus in a good light.

Which IMO is the whole idea behind this ongoing hyping of what is in essence a complete non-event really: somebody at Airbus writing a resume of where the 787 went completely wrong....

The information may be stale, or accessible pretty much anywhere if one really digs for it, but as Jon points out along with other analysts it's the fact that one of the prime bidders of the tanker contract has exposed themselves as a entity that may be less than trustworthy on matters of military security.

In this context, may I point out that the only tanker contract bidder which must be seen as untrustworthy to work with is Boeing? After all, it's not Airbus fault IF Boeing (and their suppliers) apparently can't keep sensitive data safe from others... Airbus definitely is not the KGB, yet they apparently have no problems whatsoever peeping into the Boeing kitchen via a live stream of information so it seems!
If I were the USAF, I'd be reluctant to work with a company which has such an obvious quality problem as Boeing! Not only have they lost track of the configuration on the entire 787 program, yet they also find internal information of theirs in the hands of their key competitor. What does that say about the security, quality and audit standards at Boeing, you think? LOW LOW LOW
Yet this company should be entrusted with the all important job of building the future fleet of tankers for the USAF on time, on spec and without the 'enemies' knowing all about the program's technical problems and weaknesses well before the Pentagon does?

[flightlover]

As they say: "it's easier to shoot the messenger"

[regi]

With Obama in the White House, we will see a very quick isolation of the USA. Obama made clear that he will create 2.5 million jobs. He made clear that he will tax foreign companies in the USA differently than USA companies. This is blunt violation of free trade . NAFTA agreements will be canceled. The land of free entreprise agreed to provide state subsidies to the car industry. Do you think that Airbus still makes a chance to get the deal of the century ? Politically Obama just made friends, no enemies. But in hard times, he will have to deliver to his voters. Jobs, money. In this time of crisis nobody in the USA will object that he trespasses international free trade agreements/legislation, and goes for Made in the USA.
I wonder what the impact of such a decision wil be. It will certainly weaken the position of Airbus to supply tankers to other customers. It will also weaken the position of European aircraft component manufacturers.
European NATO member states will have to use the Boeing tanker capacity during NATO activities. This will create a long term feeling that the partnership is too much one sided.
I would not be surprised this would have negative impact on the European contribution in the JSF-program.