random notes

'Europeans Shouldn't Be Pointing Their Fingers at Washington'

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Of course European politicians have the same right as executives at EADS and Northrop Grumman to accuse politicians in Washington of an unfair bidding process. Some countries have, in fact, shown a preference for the EADS/Northrop aircraft over Boeing's model. But Boeing's tanker isn't so bad that its purchase would weaken the American military. The aircraft may even have other advantages -- like its modern cockpit and the ability to conduct tanking in an entirely manual manner, which could be advantageous in a combat situation. The EADS tanker can hold more fuel, more cargo and more passengers. But the same is true of the American C-17A transport plane and the Russian Antonov An-70. Europe could have purchased those aircraft, but instead decided to develop its own expensive and complex military transport plane. The original plan was also to use American Pratt & Whitney engines on the A400M -- in the end, owing to political considerations, they had to be developed in Europe."

"The defense industry is far from being a normal business … but that should change. Today's practices cost taxpayers a lot of money and also lead to a situation in which armies seldom get the best products for their money -- up to and including toilet paper. But for Europeans to insinuate that everything about the Americans' defense bidding processes is particularly terrible, is hypocritical and nothing more than a political ritual."

The Financial Times Deutschland concurs that Europe is equally guilty of protecting its defense industries, writing:

"The Europeans shouldn't be pointing their fingers at Washington. Instead they should be asking all participants what kind of economic and political damage their protectionist games are causing. … Paradoxically, the loss of the US contract could be good news for Airbus investors. A fixed fee had been set for each aircraft and, as the cost overruns with the European A400M military transport aircraft have shown, fixed pricing can present a huge risk. Besides, EADS already has enough major risks on its hands. There are still production problems with the A380 jumbo jet. And the company still needs to develop its A350 widebody model. Finally, the A400M disaster has blown a huge hole in the company's budget. EADS and Airbus have both shown in recent years that the companies have trouble completing major projects. Instead of jumping into a new adventure, the company should get a handle on its existing problems."

... guess both have their points ...
... because we all from both sides ...
... forgot the common sense of building under license ...
... like in the cold war ...

... globalization has made the planet closer ...
... but peak oil could make it unreachable ...
... so the right move would have been licensing the production ...
... instead than bidding directly ...

... and the same should be done with lines such as the C130 ...
... the Japanese build them under license at Fuji ...
... it makes the all logistic process easier ...
... and in the after peak-everything scenario ...
... a lot closer ...