Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EADS Pick Alabama For New U.S. Site - Sources Say

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EADS Pick Alabama For New U.S. Site - Sources Say

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - European defense contractor EADS has picked a site in Mobile, Alabama to build an engineering facility that may be expanded into a manufacturing facility, sources familiar with the decision said on Tuesday. EADS will build the facility, which will initially employ about 150 people, at the Mobile Downtown Airport, said the sources, who asked not to be identified.

    Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...ADS-USA-DC.XML

    Regards.
    TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

    Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

    www.flytap.com

  • #2
    Such PR announcements by EADS are moot if they dont get US Military contracts. I dont think that the French would allow a US facility to start assembling and manufacturing Civilian Airbus Products eh?
    adaequatio rei et intellectus

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by vojoboy
      Such PR announcements by EADS are moot if they dont get US Military contracts. I dont think that the French would allow a US facility to start assembling and manufacturing Civilian Airbus Products eh?
      I agree with you. But EADS is French, German and Spanish not only French.

      However, Boeing has sold military aircraft to European countries and they don't have any assembly facility in Europe.

      So I think the EADS approach is "friendlier" then Boeing's, don't you?

      Regards.
      TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

      Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

      www.flytap.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TAP-A343
        I agree with you. But EADS is French, German and Spanish not only French.

        However, Boeing has sold military aircraft to European countries and they don't have any assembly facility in Europe.

        So I think the EADS approach is "friendlier" then Boeing's, don't you?

        Regards.
        There is still a big difference. EADS will spend Billions of Dollars building a facility just to "assemble" 100 refueling tankers? If I'm an investor, why would I invest in a company that would spend billions without a "reasonable" ROI? I have nothing against EADS winning the tanker deal based on merits. However, I just dont see the economic sense of building facility in the US just for the tankers the same facility can also be used to assemble Civil Airliners. Do you think that Toulouse (or Hamburg to some extent) will allow a US facility to assemble civil aircraft? I dont think so.
        adaequatio rei et intellectus

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by vojoboy
          There is still a big difference. EADS will spend Billions of Dollars building a facility just to "assemble" 100 refueling tankers? If I'm an investor, why would I invest in a company that would spend billions without a "reasonable" ROI? I have nothing against EADS winning the tanker deal based on merits. However, I just dont see the economic sense of building facility in the US just for the tankers the same facility can also be used to assemble Civil Airliners. Do you think that Toulouse (or Hamburg to some extent) will allow a US facility to assemble civil aircraft? I dont think so.
          EADS has said it would expand the facility and invest up to $600 million, employing over 1,000 highly paid aircraft engineers, if it wins a large enough share of a pending competition for new U.S. Air Force refueling tankers.
          EADS are not saying that they will spend billions of dollars. The article says "build an engineering facility that may be expanded into a manufacturing facility" not an assembly facility.

          Considering that this tanker order is worth at least 20 billion dollars, an extra 600 million of investment (even if they don't get the whole order) seems an excellent ROI to me. And more orders could follow if the American Congress would allow.

          Regards.
          TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

          Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

          www.flytap.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TAP-A343
            EADS are not saying that they will spend billions of dollars. The article says "build an engineering facility that may be expanded into a manufacturing facility" not an assembly facility.

            Considering that this tanker order is worth at least 20 billion dollars, an extra 600 million of investment (even if they don't get the whole order) seems an excellent ROI to me. And more orders could follow if the American Congress would allow.

            Regards.
            20 billion dollars? are you sure? those guys up in toulouse must be smoking something eh? (unless they consider replacing the KC-135 and KC-10 fleet on a one-to-one basis)

            An Engineering facility would make sense but wouldnt all design work for the KC-330 already been done given that both the French, UK and Australian Airforces have procured it?

            I dont believe that it will be a manufacturing facility. All previous EADS Press Releases are geared towards having most of the final assembly done here in the US (unless the plan has changed). I dont believe that $600 million dollars is enough to build such facility unless it involves a local partner like Northrop Grumman.
            adaequatio rei et intellectus

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by vojoboy
              20 billion dollars? are you sure? those guys up in toulouse must be smoking something eh? (unless they consider replacing the KC-135 and KC-10 fleet on a one-to-one basis)
              Congress last year killed a proposed $23.5 billion Air Force deal to lease and buy an initial 100 converted Boeing 767s as refueling tankers
              Is this number from Toulouse?

              Regards.
              TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

              Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

              www.flytap.com

              Comment


              • #8
                barring any unforseen (and rather drastic, so far as recent policy is concerned) shifts in market and USA gov't practices...

                ...this whole thing seems to be something of an exercise in futility for Airbus.
                Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                Check it out!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TAP-A343
                  Is this number from Toulouse?

                  Regards.
                  Touche!
                  adaequatio rei et intellectus

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                    barring any unforseen (and rather drastic, so far as recent policy is concerned) shifts in market and USA gov't practices...

                    ...this whole thing seems to be something of an exercise in futility for Airbus.
                    I would say this is rather an exercise of political pressure over the American Congress concerning the WTO dispute.

                    Regards.
                    TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

                    Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

                    www.flytap.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Perhaps.

                      But I was speaking more of the fact that the USA military has rarely relied on a foreign manufacturer, and ~never~ to supply replacements for an entire class of aircraft...

                      ...and regardless as to whether one agrees or disagrees with said policy; I certainly couldn't see it changing, in this, the Bush Administration-inspired Rainbow-era of strategic-xenophobia.
                      Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                      Check it out!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                        Perhaps.

                        But I was speaking more of the fact that the USA military has rarely relied on a foreign manufacturer, and ~never~ to supply replacements for an entire class of aircraft...

                        ...and regardless as to whether one agrees or disagrees with said policy; I certainly couldn't see it changing, in this, the Bush Administration-inspired Rainbow-era of strategic-xenophobia.
                        I see what you mean.

                        France and Germany are not exactly on the country "love-list" at the moment, of the Bush Administration and vice-versa, I would say.

                        Regards.
                        TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

                        Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

                        www.flytap.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TAP-A343
                          France and Germany are not exactly on the country "love-list" at the moment, of the Bush Administration and vice-versa, I would say.
                          ...and taking that perspective into account, while it's easy to blame this administration for a lot of things, can one truly blame them so far as disregarding Europe as a tanker contender?

                          I think not.

                          Again, regardless as to how anyone feels about the merits of the Iraq war II, the fact remains that France (and to a lesser effect, Germany) did absolutely everything it could to thwart USA militaristic intentions both before and immediately following the 2003 invasion.

                          There is little reason to believe that stifling aircraft deliveries wouldn't have been included in those efforts.
                          Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                          Check it out!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm sick and tired of Alabama getting everything! Savannah would have been a better location, the State of Georgia has a site they've been pushing for some sort of manufacturing plant, Savannah has a very good port, and there is a ready made pool of skilled aircraft assembly workers in the area (Gulfstream's plant is in the Savannah area). When Boeing did there charade of looking at other locations to build the 787, Savannah came up due to the skilled aerospace labor in the area.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by srbmod
                              I'm sick and tired of Alabama getting everything! Savannah would have been a better location, the State of Georgia has a site they've been pushing for some sort of manufacturing plant, Savannah has a very good port, and there is a ready made pool of skilled aircraft assembly workers in the area (Gulfstream's plant is in the Savannah area). When Boeing did there charade of looking at other locations to build the 787, Savannah came up due to the skilled aerospace labor in the area.
                              Well apparently something is keeping manufacturing companies away from Savannah. There are probably issues that are not openly known. I know AL has received many manufacturing plants in recent years due in a large part to MUCH lower land prices, not to mention tax breaks/incentives compared to neighboring states. Having a decent local talent pool is important, but I'm sure plenty of people would move anywhere if the money is right. IMO, if Savannah wants more manufacturers from varying sectors, they should do more to lure them in.
                              Bama sux, War Eagle!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X