France vows retaliation against US in air tanker dispute

France has vowed to retaliate against the United States for allegedly shutting Europe's aviation giant EADS out of a $50bn (£33.4bn) defence contract, warning of potential damage to the Atlantic alliance.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - Published: 7:33PM GMT 10 Mar 2010

"This is a serious affair," said France's Europe minister Pierre Lellouche. "I can assure you that there will be consequences."

"You cannot expect Europeans to contribute to global defence if you deny their industries the right to work on both sides of the Atlantic," he said, adding that French president Nicolas Sarkozy would take action "at the appropriate time".

The escalating spat comes after EADS withdrew this week from a joint bid with Northrop Grumman to supply the Pentagon with A330 air refuelling tankers, alleging that the procurement terms had been rigged to favour Boeing.

EADS had already won the contract before, offering a larger and more efficient aircraft than Boeing's 767, which is based on technology dating back to the early 1980s. The original deal was struck down after an appeal by Boeing.

Defence disputes fall outside the ambit of the World Trade Organization so Paris is looking at other ways to strike back. "It is obvious that if we roll over and do nothing after a fait accompli by the Pentagon, it is the end of Europe's credibility," said Mr Lellouche.

Rainer Brüderle, Germany's economy minister, has also expressed outrage, alleging that the tender "had clearly been designed to favour Boeing under political pressure."

Joachim Pfeiffer, Bundestag spokesman for the Christian Democrats, said the Pentagon's conduct was "scandalous", a sentiment echoed by a string of politicians on Wednesday.

<SNIP>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7415855/France-vows-retaliation-against-US-in-air-tanker-dispute.html

and pointed out that our fathers were hamsters and our mothers smelt of elderberries.

sold to the USA for DECADES

And most of the time, for doing the very same things you do.

Being a Free Trade advocate and always willing to tell us Yankees down South what to do with OUR trade policies is VERY DISINGENUOUS

AT LEAST QUALIFY YOURSELF BY ADMITTING YOU LIVE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY that benefits tremendously by America's Free Trade Policies

And why is it you only visit DU to discuss FREE TRADE - HeresyLives ?

so then I have to build bigger hangers? cost more to fly because of fuel consumption.

You may be thinking of the A380.

and what is the source on your relative fuel consumption data between the Airbus and the 767 ?

It is so sad that the French ruling party is using the same racist tactics they learned from Jean-Marie Le Pen as a winning strategy. Indeed, they will win the elections, with Islamophobia in their election sleeves.

Fuck you Mr. Sarkozy, and your entire UMP neo-fascist party.

It just doesn't to anybody else.

...or any wear?

And not remotely Le Pen.

The french ruling UMP are now using Islamophophia to win the next election in order to dumbed down the bad atmosphere they have created when they came into office; slashing healthcare budget; bashing union pay; and calling on pension reductions. Of course Mr. Sarkozy backed down when he realized he had no choice but to let the working man earn his/her wages french-style. Now the UMP has a winning formula. They want to "Divide and Rule".....they want the french folk to be upset, not their own UMP government, of course, but toward the low earning non-french-speaking-parisian worker/foreigner.


...and of what I understood from your earlier snark response, I guess you are supporter of the UMP!

and he is willing to tell us Americans how we should conduct our trade policy

...in the KC-135 class.

The A330 would be a good replacement for the KC-10.

I don't understand why EADS didn't promote an A320.

for over 30 years and that isn't good enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HH-65_Dolphin

:sarcasm:

they ripped us off with their wine (whine)

seems like a bad economic climate to make this fight.

Like it originally went down in 2002 (I believe) they were going to build a plant in Alabama for assembly at a minimum. It still would have brought jobs to the US.

also fuel consumption is an issue the 767 based tanker will be More cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane, the Boeing NewGen Tanker will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel.

Since this is a smaller plane the price tag should be cheaper than the original Northrop/EADS bid.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34163.html

www.lexingtoninstitute.org/tanker-fallout-charges-of-us-protectionism-are-wrong-but-may-reveal-a-hidden-agenda?a=1&c=1171

Tanker Fallout: Charges Of U.S. Protectionism Are Wrong, But May Reveal A Hidden Agenda

Author: Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The European media are in an uproar today following Northrop Grumman's decision to pull out of the Air Force's tanker competition. Much of the commentary accepts at face value the charge made by Northrop and European aerospace conglomerate EADS that the solicitation favored Boeing, and then jumps to the erroneous conclusion that Washington is practicing a form of protectionism.
In Europe's defense, it is hard to explain how the modified Airbus commercial transport that Northrop offered in the first round of tanker competition could win so handily, and then not be a viable contender at all in the second round. However, critics have conveniently overlooked the fact that the Airbus plane won the first round because the government conducted an incompetent, unprofessional source selection. That's why a second round was required -- to fix all the problems arising out of the first round.

Anybody who thinks that Northrop's decision not to bid was the result of protectionism favoring a more American airplane hasn't taken a close look at the solicitation. The standards of merit for offerors are spelled out in excruciating detail, and there is not the slightest hint of bias. The Northrop offering could easily have satisfied all 372 mandatory performance requirements, and Air Force officials refused to even read the recent decision by the World Trade Organization challenging European subsidies for Airbus commercial planes such as the A330 Northrop was pitching.

What really went wrong for Northrop and Airbus in the latest solicitation is that the European company didn't have a plane in its current commercial lineup that was price-competitive with the Boeing 767. Even with subsidies, the Airbus A330 Northrop was offering would have been so much more costly to build and operate that it could not have matched Boeing on price. Northrop's strategy for winning always depended in part on convincing the Air Force to do the aerial refueling mission a new way, but once the Air Force decided to seek a simple replacement for its existing Eisenhower-era tankers, the bigger Airbus plane was doomed. In essence, it needed to get extra credit for capabilities the service didn't want to prevail.

Having said all that, it doesn't take a genius to see where European governments will try to go with their erroneous charges of U.S. protectionism. They will say that if America can protect its producers then they should be able to protect theirs too, and Europe will then try to set aside the WTO ruling on airliner subsidies. That would be an utter travesty if it happened, because Europe has used such subsidies, particularly launch aid, to deprive America of literally hundreds of billions of dollars in export earnings. If Europe tries to go that route, the Obama Administration needs to signal in no uncertain terms that America will no longer accept unfair, predatory trade practices that harm its economy -- no matter what pretext the perpetrators dream up.

Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

Subscribe to Early Warning Blog
RETURN TO EARLY WARNING BLOG << PREVIOUS

I don't really need them, I read the latest defense news every morning when I get to work. :shrug:

If the US was going to tilt this toward Boeing has heavily as it did, I hope their cost is considerably less than the Northrop/EADS plane, since it's smaller. I'm a proponent of open and competitive bidding for military contracts, the best equipment for the best price. Now that it's down to just Boeing on the tanker, I hope the Pentagon can keep their feet to the fire keeping cost down.

This isn't a state-of-the-art fighter airplane or stealth ship we're talking about, monsieur. It's an airliner with a tank of dispensable jet fuel, some pumps, a few refueling booms and a window for the refueling operator to look out of. It is simply not that complex of a thing. And considering all the wonders of up-to-date technology--Windows Vista, Auto-Tune the News, phishing, your planes falling out of the sky for no fucking reason--I think I'll stick with the tried and true.