US Defense sequestration: USAF tanker on hit list

The White House issued a 394 page report on what defense programs are subject to sequestration. The USAF tanker replacement–a program won by Boeing in a bitter contest–is on the hit list (PDF Page 274, document page Appendix B 38). It’s something called the Replacement Transfer Fund, Appropriation Discretionary. Whatever all this means.

Around the world in 5 minutes

This has nothing to do with aviation (except implicitly that’s how Matt got from one place to another) but this is just so darn cool, we have to share it.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwe-pA6TaZk&w=560&h=315]

And here are outtakes from the trip.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4quCAG4eCc&w=560&h=315]

BAE Systems is growth opportunity for EADS

Update, Sept. 13: Here are some stories from today:

Bloomberg: EADS move seen by Boeing as growth; Revives decade-old plan; and this update about the rankings:

BAE is the ninth biggest vendor to the U.S. government, with $7.3 billion in direct, or prime, contracts in the year that ended Sept. 30, according to a Bloomberg Government study ranking the top 200 contractors. EADS ranks No. 100, with $684 million in awards.

Reuters: US approval seen likely.

AOL: Big deal in Europe, not so much US.

Mobile (AL) Press-Register: EADS-BAE in merger talks, with a spin on local impact.

Original Post:

The prospective combination of BAE Systems and EADS is a growth opportunity for EADS, particularly in the US, where it has been striving for years to expand its defense footprint.

BAE Systems in 2009 was the Defense Department’s #5 of the Top 10 defense contractors. At that time 50% of BAE’s business was in the US. We have checked more recent figures. EADS North America, during the KC-X tanker competition, did about $1bn worth of business with the US government, in defense, Homeland Security and other contracts. We don’t believe this has appreciably changed in the 18 months since the tanker contract was awarded to Boeing.

Although the immediate reaction among observers and media is that the combination will make a strong competitor to Boeing, in fact BAE Systems services defense segments that are more closely aligned with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman than with Boeing. There is also little if any overlap between BAE and EADS, whether here or in Europe and the UK, where BAE is headquartered.

BAE has about 40,000 employees in the US.

The combination, which has to be approved by the boards of both companies as well as a host of governments on both sides of the Atlantic, will certainly strengthen EADS and its argument that it is a substantial contributor to the US economy and US employment. Airbus, a wholly owned subsidiary that accounts for around 80% of EADS revenues, purchases $12bn in goods and services in the US and says it employs or supports 100,000 jobs directly or indirectly.

BAE, which owned 20% of Airbus until EADS bought these shares in 2006, isn’t a current supplier to Airbus. Although defense cuts in Europe and the US are limiting growth at this time, these come in cycles and BAE would strategically position EADS to grow its defense business and reduce reliance on Airbus revenues and financial performance.

The new company will be 40% owned by BAE shareholders and 60% owned by EADS shareholders. The current shareholdings in EADS of the German and French governments, presently 15% each, would almost certainly be diluted. (The German EADS shareholdings are currently indirect but may become direct. The French shareholdings are direct.)

The new company would be listed on several European exchanges, including BAE’s listing on the UK stock market.

Odds and Ends: Airbus & Boeing White Elephants; BABC conference; CSeries stalking horse

White Elephants: Bloomberg News doesn’t pull any punches in this article.

747 No. 1 needs help: The Seattle Times has this long story about the first 747-100 that needs restoration.

BABC Conference: The British American Business Council has a conference Sept. 27 in Seattle, with focus on the Middle East. (Go figure.) Here is the link. Tim Clark, CEO of Emirates Airlines, is a key speaker.

CSeries Customers: Here’s a complete listing from Bombardier, the most detailed we’ve seen: The CSeries aircraft order book includes firm orders for 138 CSeries airliners from Braathens Aviation (five CS100 and five CS300 aircraft), Deutsche Lufthansa AG (30 CS100 aircraft), Korean Air (10 CS300 aircraft), Lease Corporation International Group (17 CS300 and three CS100 aircraft), PrivatAir (five CS100 aircraft), Republic Airways (40 CS300 aircraft), an unidentified major network carrier (10 CS100 aircraft), an unidentified European customer (10 CS100 aircraft) and a well-established, unidentified airline (three CS100 aircraft). The CSeries aircraft program has also booked options for 124 aircraft and purchase rights for 10 aircraft from these customers. In addition, the CSeries aircraft program has also achieved a conditional order placed by an unidentified customer for five CS100 and 10 CS300 airliners, as well as three letters of intent: for up to 30 CSeries aircraft from Ilyushin Finance Co; for up to 15 CS300 aircraft from Atlasjet; and for up to 20 CS300 aircraft from airBaltic.

AirAsia and CSeries: CAPA (Centre for Asia Pacific Aerospace) writes what we also figured: the buzz from the Farnborough Air Show about AirAsia and the CSeries seems to be more a ploy than a serious effort. Setting that aside, the CAPA piece is a pretty good analysis of the CSeries potential for low cost carriers.

The Sporty Game: AirInsight has an analysis on Boeing’s product strategy.

Odds and Ends: Random thoughts, Seinfeld style (i.e., about nothing)

We’re feeling irreverent today….

From Twitter: Boeing Defense@BoeingDefense In Sept issue of #Boeing Frontiers: With #Apollo roots, Boeing has grown to be largest #aerospace employer in #Alabama http://ow.ly/dB0Ef

Comment: We remember when Boeing said Alabamans couldn’t build a tricycle (during the bitter competition for the KC-X tanker).

Hunker Down: We’re going into the bunker on this one–Washington should become a right-to-work state. In 2008, IAM 751 (during its strike) boasted WA is the fourth most-unionized state in the country. We know this inhibits expanding aerospace here. We’ve heard it from companies. We’ve heard it from the head of one of the Economic Development Commissions here that unions are the first topic to come up when he is recruiting companies to expand here. We don’t object to unions per se but we don’t think someone should be forced to join one. (That’s how we feel about Republicans, too….)

Take two Viagra and try again: The refueling boom was being extended when it fell off an Airbus KC-30 during a test flight.

Thank you for smoking: Airbus is really pushing Europe to delay implementation of its emissions trading scheme, which jeaopardizes orders from China. Despite the sarcasm, we agree with Airbus–any regulations through be through ICAO, not on Europe’s own, ill-advised hook.

Macht nichts: No AirAsia order at the Berlin Air Show after all. The airline will be the first to operate the A320neo and the airplane with sharklets.

Macht nichts, II: MTU is a partner with Pratt & Whitney on the Geared Turbo Fan for the Mistubishi MRJ, the Bombardier CSeries, Irkut MS-21 and the A320neo but looks to join GE for the new engine for the Boeing 777X.

 

Boeing & SPEEA: shifting work brings its own hazards–and costs

Boeing & SPEEA: As we routinely do when it comes to trying to understand rhetoric of two warring parties (usually Airbus and Boeing but in this case SPEEA and Boeing), we reach out to third parties. We asked an aerospace engineer not associated with either Boeing or SPEEA about the Bloomberg interview with Boeing’s Mike Delaney in which Delaney was quoted as saying if SPEEA doesn’t accept Boeing’s terms, it will move engineering elsewhere.

Outsourcing engineering has been a sore point with SPEEA for some time and, frankly, outsourcing on the 787 and 747-8 created a lot of problems in the development of these aircraft. So Delaney’s threat can’t be dismissed.

But as with the 787 and 747-8, outsourcing isn’t a simple matter, either. Our third-party noted that engineering tasks may be unique enough that simply shifting work from groups in Seattle to engineers in Wichita (KS), where Boeing is closing its military operation, or to Boeing’s Defense engineers in St. Louis or elsewhere may hardly be a seamless transition.

Boeing, of course, will know this. But at a time when Boeing is ramping up production by 60% and has the 737 MAX, the 787-9, the 787-10, 777X and KC-46A programs underway, we’re not sure shifting work makes a lot of sense.

Even if quality work is assured–in contrast to some of the outsourcing on the 787 and 747-8 programs–and which is by no means a certainty during the switch, transition times could well slow the work at a time Boeing could ill-afford.

But Boeing looks at the long-term. It knew the risks in creating the 787 plant in Charleston. Recall that documents revealed the Charleston move to be high risk for quality, for learning curve and for cost–and the company proceeded anyway because it was fed up with the IAM 751 strikes (or because of incentives, depending on who you believe and we firmly believe the strike theory).

We’ve no doubt that Boeing is fully capable to damning the labor torpedoes. But we firmly hope common sense will prevail for both parties.

Even if a contract is reached, we also firmly believe Boeing will relocate engineering work from Seattle. The sheer volume of growth over the next several decades will demand it. If SPEEA believes otherwise, it’s whistling Dixie. And that’s probably where a lot of the future engineering will be regardless of the outcome of current talks.

Is Boeing Chicago misreading the SPEEA mood–as it did IAM 751 in 2008?

There have been many articles this week detailing the increasingly contentious, evolving situation in the contract negotiations between Boeing and the engineers union, SPEEA.

We’ve previously written that this wasn’t going to be a love-fest. And it isn’t. Jon Talton at The Seattle Times has this comment, which is a pro-union take. Boeing says it wants to control costs, notably with pension and health care costs, but that it will still have industry-leading wages. SPEEA says Boeing is asking for take-aways. This Bloomberg article neatly sums up the Boeing position.

We’re not going to weigh in on the intricacies of who’s right and who’s wrong, for this depends entirely on your point of view. We do have sympathy for the Boeing position that health care and pension costs have to be reset, but we’re not going to opine on the details of any reset.

What we going observe is the following:

Read more

Odds and Ends: Airbus takes a look at the future; Air India gets 787 Saturday; John Leahy

Looking at the future: Airbus takes a look at the future in this company-issued document. Airbus discusses the environment, Air Traffic Management and more. This link has more information about how Airbus looks at the future.

Air India: We’ll still believe it when we see it but Air India is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 Saturday. (This is skepticism about the airline, not Boeing, for clarity….) Here is a microsite from Boeing. The best part is the construction of the airplane.

John Leahy: The COO-Customers at Airbus got a promotion of sorts. See this Bloomberg article. It’s well deserved.

Boeing and SPEEA: Things aren’t going at all well in the contract negotiations between Boeing and SPEEA.

Hypocrisy and Aerospace Industries Assoc.

On Twitter:

ReutersAerospaceNews@ReutersAero

Alabama move won’t open door to Airbus in US lobby group: We dont want foreign govts to use AIA to lobby ours, CEO Blakey tells #ReutersA&D

This is hypocrisy. The UK’s BAE System is a member of AIA. Rolls-Royce (North America) is a member. Brazil’s Embraer Aircraft Holdings is a member. France’s Dassault Systems is an associate member. Safran USA (obviously part of France’s Safran) is an associate member. And these are just the ones we immediately recognize from the AIA member list.

There key issues that Airbus and Boeing have in common: flight safety, air traffic management, environment, bio-fuel. There is no reason why Airbus Americas shouldn’t be a part of this group to participate in lobbying Congress for these kinds of issues. EADS North America, which already has major Defense contracts, could help on something like sequestration.

Airbus buys $12bn worth of supplies from the US and plans to double this. Even Washington State, Boeing’s home, is a top supplier to Airbus.

Who or what is black-balling Airbus?

Shame on AIA on this one. The reason given is transparently bull[stuff].