JPRS mon blog !
| Auteur | Message | |
|
Vector
Inscrit le 26/06/2007 |
# 14 mai 2010 21:17 | |
|
Bonjour JP, Une question sans doute naïve : Pourquoi ne pas remotoriser le 757 ? Et le "wingletter" par la même occasion. N'en déplaise aux fans de RR, les motoristes font des promesses de politiciens. Et comme le disait si bien San Antonio, "le gars dégaine en moins de temps qu'il n'en faut à un politicien pour oublier ses promesses électorales". Est que les deux grands (A et B) ont investi tant de leurs ressources dans leurs nouveaux programmes qu'il n'ont plus le moyens d'assurer l'amélioration normale des anciens avions, ce qui était la tradition depuis longtemps en aviation. _________________ " Des trolls, n'en jetez plus, la cour est déjà pleine !" Vector |
||
 
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 14 mai 2010 21:29 | |
|
Ben ... sais pas ! On en parle parfois, chez A.net, mais il est un peu vieux .... et seul, surtout ! 1000 et qq seulement, combien à équiper ! Et il faudrait un moteur dans la puissance 36-44 000 lbs... il n'existe pas ! Rien sur le marché today ! Faudrait un coeur neuf ... Ou le lancement d'un nouvel avion dans la catégorie, pour intéresser les motoristes ! Je trouve d'ailleurs triste, que comme SNECMA, dans le temps, plus un motoriste n'ait les noix pour lancer un moteur-nacelle pour prendre un marché de remotorisation ... Trop de beurre dans l'entretien, à mon avis ! Une balle dans le pied ! JPRS (Dernière édition le 14 mai 2010 21:47) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
LightWeight
Inscrit le 28/12/2006 |
# 15 mai 2010 08:42 | |
|
Bonjour, Il y a pas mal de 757 qui ont été équipés de Winglets. Pour une remotorisation des 757-200, il y a le prochain GTF pour le MS21 en augmentant un peu la poussée (16500 kgp au lieu de 15600). Ce 757 passerait de 8300 km à au moins 9500 km. Reste à savoir s' il y a suffisamment de compagnies intéressées ne serait-ce que pour les gains de conso et des côuts d' entretien, sans se préoccuper du gain d' autonomie... |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 15 mai 2010 09:12 | |
|
Bonjour ! Ramené de Avia ! L'arrivée (On l'espère, mais ...) prochaine des B787, va provoquer qq remous dans les flottes, apportant peut être de l'eau au moulin des analystes de l'UBS ... Que faire des avions déplacés, le marché global des avions, se rétrécit, cause du ralentissement du marché de pax, et du fret, et doit faire face à des prévisions de croissance nettement plus modérées que prévu ! Les lessors vont devoir affronter de plus en plus les propres Airlines, bien obligées de se transformer en Lessors, ou Sub-Lessors pour sortir à moindre perte de leurs flottes en obsolescence, pour cause de l'arrivée de nouveaux avions, commandés, peut être un peu vite d'ailleurs pendant les "Belles années" ! SIA hier annonce un Leasing de 777 à Brunei ! Air India cherche des clients pour ses 777-200 ! Ca ne fait que commencer, qui sera le prochain ?? Grands perdants ... les Lessors légitimes, qui d'ailleurs risquent de faire partie du peu enviable Hit Parade des annulations ! Lessors qui n'avaient pas besoin non plus, des futurs programmes de remotorisation ! Bon, c'est le business, chacun sa peine .... Demandez à Renault de sauver Hertz ... et vous verrez ce que dit Carlos ! ------------------ Flightglobal 3 Articles ------------------ http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... march.html Air India expects to take first 787 next March By Brendan Sobie Air India expects to begin taking delivery of new Boeing 787s at the end of next year's first quarter. "Boeing is now offering us March 2011," Air India chairman and managing director Arvind Jadhav told ATI during a Star Alliance event in Sao Paulo. While Air India is looking to sublease nearly half of its new Boeing 777-200LR/-300ER fleet, Jadhav says the carrier requires 787s as soon as possible because the aircraft are critical to its plans for improving its intra-Asia operation. "The 787 is going to change the game," Jadhav says. "It is really required for our market. That's why we ordered 27." Jadhav adds the 787 will give Air India a competitive advantage on Asian regional routes such as Delhi-Hong Kong, resulting in increased feed for its long-haul routes. "That's why we are a little unhappy in the delays of the 787," Jadhav says. Air India's 787 deliveries have been delayed multiple times since the carrier ordered 27 Dreamliners in January 2006. ------------------------------ Des clients potentiels ! http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ndias.html Air Canada, Garuda, Thai and Air Austral could sublease Air India’s 777s By Brendan Sobie Air Canada, Thai Airways International, Garuda Indonesia and Reunion Island-based Austral have expressed interest in subleasing Boeing 777-200LRs and 777-300ERs from Air India. Earlier this year Air India announced plans to lease out a large portion of its new 777 fleet as part of a cost cutting programme. Air India chairman and managing director Arvind Jadhav says the carrier has so far received responses from Air Canada, Thai, Garuda and Air Austral. "There are four responses. We are evaluating them," Jadhav told ATI during a Star Alliance event in Sao Paulo. Air India is in the process of joining Star while Air Canada and Thai are already in the alliance. --------------------------- Des annulations de Lessors .........(Merci le Cousin) http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... -787s.html CAO Report: Six canceled 787s tied to AWAS By Jon Ostrower on May 14, 2010 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis A report by Flightglobal partner Commercial Aviation Online (CAO) identifies Irish aircraft lessor AWAS as having cancelled its order for six 787 aircraft. The cancellation brings the net 2010 787 order total to 9, following the cancellation of 10 aircraft by Air Berlin and the finalization of United's order for 25. The AWAS order was formerly held by the Pegasus Aviation Finance Company and before that originated as a four aircraft 2004 order by Italian charter operator Blue Panorama for the 7E7. Pegasus increased its order in 2006 to six aircraft. Boeing currently holds orders for 860 orders for the 787. JPRS (Dernière édition le 15 mai 2010 09:30) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 15 mai 2010 23:22 | |
|
Bonsoir ! Retenez moi ou je m'en vais ! Sur fonds de subsides et WTO ! Boeing joue les Arlésiennes ! Chacun son tour ! Devant la triste perspectve de voir les prix au tapis, avec sur les bras un avion à terminer, sinon à inventer ... Ben Boeing, tente d'influencer le congrès, et fait l'Ane pour avoir du son ... Pas Mal ! Au fait, l'objet du RFP, c'était de faire baisser les prix, et diminuer le coût des Tankers pour le contribuable Américain ? N'est il pas ! Ben, ça marche beaucoup trop bien, au goût de Boeing ! Pas loin de se rouler par terre, et en pleine crise d'hystérie ! Bien, même si Airbus perd, ça va laisser des traces, ils s'en souviendront le Boeing Tankersmen ! Il y a 2 mois, c'est Airbus qui s'en allait ! Et qui est revenu aprés qq concessions ! Maintenant, ce sera au tour d'Airbus de menacer ... en attendant le prochain round de ce mauvais feuilleton ! ---------------------- Acte I Airbus, Je m'en vais ------------------- ---------------------- Acte II Airbus, Je reviens -------------------- ---------------------- Acte III Boeing, Je m'en vais / Extrait ------------------- http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... &s=TOP Boeing Source: We May Not Bid For KC-X By VAGO MURADIAN and JOHN REED Published: 14 May 2010 17:57 Boeing is considering not bidding for the U.S. Air Force's KC-X tanker contract, a company source said May 14. Boeing CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract, an executive told Defense News. (Boeing) That would leave Europe's EADS - which earlier this year had threatened its own pullout - as the sole bidder for the multibillion-dollar prize. CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract, one senior Boeing executive said. "Is it conceivable that we wouldn't bid?" the executive said. "We are proud of the fleet and want it to win the contract so the Air Force keeps flying our planes. Your heart says you have to be part of it, but a CEO's job is to make sure that the heart doesn't make a decision the head can't live with." Boeing spokesman Damien Mills insisted May 13 that the firm will bid. But Boeing supporters have long complained that illegal subsidies would lower EADS' bid price, and company officials have said for several weeks that the Pentagon appears to have shifted requirements to favor the European firm. Earlier this year, DoD officials - eager to avoid a sole-source award to Boeing in the wake of Northrop Grumman's withdrawal - delayed the bidding deadline 60 days to allow EADS to bid. DoD also allowed the European firm to enter the contest without a U.S. firm as a partner. ------------- ----------------------Acte IV Boeing, je reviens ! Extrait -------------- http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/205973.asp Spokesman denies report that Boeing might not bid on tanker Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale Friday refuted a Defense News report that Boeing might not bid on the U.S. Air Force's aerial refueling tanker contract. Defense News, quoting an unnamed Boeing executive, said: "Boeing CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract." Why wouldn't Boeing bid? Because executives don't want to lose and fear competitor EADS North America can undercut it on price, despite having a larger, more-expensive plane, thanks to European subsidies, according to Defense News. Boeing and its political allies continue to push the Pentagon hard to penalize the EADS bid based on a World Trade Organization ruling that European nations improperly subsidized Airbus programs, including the A330, which is the basis for the EADS tanker. Pentagon officials have refused to consider the ruling, saying it has not finished working its way through the WTO process and a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing is pending. But senators and congressmen from Kansas, Washington and other Boeing-heavy states have signed on to a measure that would force the Pentagon to consider WTO rulings in defense contracts. The unnamed executive said talk of not bidding was not a negotiating tactic by Boeing, although Pentagon officials have repeatedly stated their preference for a competition and delayed the bid deadline by 60 days to give EADS more time after former lead tanker partner Northrop Grumman pulled out of the contest. Ironically, Northrop pulled out because its executives believed the Air Force's tanker request favored Boeing's smaller plane. --------------------- Quelqu'un de sérieux à l' USAF pour arrêter ce cirque ---- a moins que ce discrédit ne les amuse, car il retombe sur les politiques ! JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 15 mai 2010 23:56 | |
|
Bonsoir ! Et le commentaire de Scott Hamilton, chez Leeham! C'est un extrait, et c'est long ! Bonne synthése ! Bon courage ! ------------------------ Leeham Extrait -------------------- http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/05 ... #more-2983 So how might Boeing be in danger of being hoisted on its own petard? Boeing and its supporters pushed the Pentagon very hard to have this round of KC-X competition be a best-price competition, while Northrop Grumman wanted a best-value contest. Both sides believed that if the Pentagon chose a best-price competition, Boeing would have the advantage by offering a smaller airplane that had lower life cycle and lower infrastructure costs (operating costs and Military Construction, or MilCon, costs respectively) and that the extra capabilities of the larger Northrop KC-45 would not count. The Pentagon’s February Request for Proposal was characterized as a best value RFP by officials, but as Northrop, EADS, Boeing and analysts read the document, it was clear that best price prevailed. The Pentagon made it clear that whoever presented the best price would win if the bid met all 372 technical requirements. Only if the bids came within 1% of each other, including analysis of the life cycle and MilCon costs, would credit be awarded for exceeding the minimum technical requirements. Boeing asserts its KC-767 has at least a 24% advantage on life cycle costs. Northrop and EADS disputed this figure, but nonetheless were concerned that without initial consideration for the KC-45′s extra capabilities beyond the KC-767 (which are what won Northrop the bid in Round 2, later overturned by the GAO on procedural grounds), the KC-45′s goose was cooked. The additional MilCon costs are figures we have not seen. Northrop also had concerns about the fixed price nature of the contract, as did Boeing. Northrop withdrew from the contest in April, citing the fixed price provision and the widely-held conclusion that the RFP favored the smaller KC-767. EADS later decided to make a bid on its own, citing several reasons: it believes it has the best airplane and should go ahead and bid; it has hundreds of millions in sunk costs into the project from the Round 2 bid; the KC-330 Multi Role Tanker Transport on which the KC-45 is a derivative is more mature than it was in 2007 and is about to be delivered to the launch customer, the Australian air force; it is now in production, with the UK’s model now rolled out as well; the Air Force certified EADS as a “qualified” prime contractor, eliminating the need for a lead US company that was necessary with the Northrop relationship; and the Pentagon asked EADS to bid to provide competition for the contract. Although Boeing’s commercial 767-200ER on which its KC-767 offering is based is some $60m less in list price than the Airbus A330-200 on which the KC-45 is based, Northrop came in lower than Boeing in the Round 2 pricing ($184m vs $200m) largely because the USAF added $5bn to the Boeing cost factor due to risk vs. adding $700m to Northrop. The same risk factor assessment is absent from this Round 3 bidding, which means the USAF’s adding of risk-factor money may not be a significant factor as it was in Round 2. Boeing’s supporters believe that adding the WTO costs of the illegal Airbus subsidies back into the equation, as discussed in the Defense News article, means an additional $5m to each KC-45. (We don’t know how this figure is derived; $5bn, the amount Boeing and its supporters allege was the illegal subsidy to the A330, divided by 179 airplanes is $28m per airplane according to our calculator.) But we do note the $5bn figure alleged on the A330 is the same amount the USAF added to the KC-767 cost in Round 2. Flip this figure and it is a swing of $10bn. EADS is less concerned about the fixed cost provision of the RFP than was Northrop. EADS officials point out that Airbus has been doing fixed priced contracts for decades, competing against Boeing in doing so. Although the same certainly can be said for Boeing-its commercial division has likewise been competing against Airbus with fixed price contracts-the KC-45 is in production and EADS now knows the development costs. Boeing’s KC-767 NewGen is a conceptual airplane. It is not in production and it is a derivative of the troubled Italian KC-767, which is five years late and still undelivered. Developmental costs of the KC-767NG may be much more a crap shoot than EADS believes its costs are for the KC-45, raising more concern for Boeing as outlined in the Defense News piece. With the withdrawal of Northrop from the KC-45 program, the profit margin associated with Northrop now is out of the financial equation. This enables EADS to offer a lower price. No one will tell us what the Northrop profit margin was other than to say it was “significant.” EADS also denies that it will low-ball any bid because it can’t afford to. Cost overruns on the A400M and A380 programs, deferred cash flows on the A380 production delays which we estimate to be in the billions of dollars, customer penalties associated with the A380 delays, and R&D funding for the A350 and the A320 re-engine combine to mean that EADS doesn’t have the financial where-with-all to low-ball bids, officials say. EADS also wants to acquire US companies to increase its US footprint. In addition to Boeing’s belief that the A330 subsidies need to be calculated are aggravated by the elimination of the Northrop profit margin and the development uncertainties of the KC-767NG. So Boeing is worried that EADS could actually submit the best price, which according to the terms of the RFP–and what Boeing and its supporters lobbied for–EADS would win the contract. As we noted in our other post, Playing with Fire, you need to be careful what you ask for. So what’s going on with the conflicting reports out of Boeing? One observer indirectly associated with Boeing and supporting the KC-767 bid hypothesizes this may be an effort to stir the pot in connection with the bills introduced this week in Congress to force the Pentagon to consider the WTO subsidies. As we previously noted, we think this is playing with fire. Although Boeing believes that any WTO ruling against it with respect to the European complaint about illegal subsidies provided Boeing, this is a big gamble. What if the bet is wrong? The twists and turns continue in this controversial procurement. Posted in Airbus, Boeing, EADS, air force tanker | Tags: air force tanker, Airbus, Boeing, EADS, KC-45, KC-767, Northrop Grumman JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 00:15 | |
|
Bonsoir ! Du 12 Mai ! Sponsorisée par EADS La dernière, c'est promis ! Tout est révisé, d'un seul coup ! Désolé pour la charge ! Dernier pensum! Une seule conclusion ... Boeing est aux abois ... pour gagner de l'argent , et c'est sérieux .... presque indécent, cela va finir par se remarquer un jour ?? ------------------------ L'article, dans Defense-Aerospace -------------- http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -wars.html Real Tanker News: The Boeing Bill (Source: EADS North America; issued May 12, 2010) “We listen to our customer. It is not our job to tell our customer what the warfighter needs.” In defense procurement you’ll often hear that said, because that is the mission of the defense industry – to serve the warfighter. That is why it is most startling, this morning, to read this Reuters story highlighting how one competitor in the KC-X tanker competition has decided to use the legislative process to manipulate the way the Air Force is permitted to manage this $35 billion procurement. That company is Boeing. At issue is a pair of international commercial trade disputes involving the European Union and the United States over what is and what isn’t appropriate government support for commercial aircraft development. The Pentagon long ago decided this issue is not relevant to a defense acquisition. Boeing has signaled to the Air Force (the customer) that it refuses to accept that determination or the Department's right to make it. The Reuters report highlights an email being shipped around Capitol Hill – written by one of Boeing’s employees – seeking co-sponsors for what can only be called the Boeing Bill. The Boeing Bill is a piece of legislation that would direct the Air Force to manage the tanker competition the way Boeing wants it run by factoring in those disputes in a manner favorable to Boeing, rather than running it the way the Air Force long ago said it wanted to. The goal? To make certain that only one company in the KC-X competition (Boeing) has an opportunity to win. The reason is clear. Only EADS North America has a tanker and refueling system responsive to the Air Force’s needs. Boeing doesn’t have such an airplane and is likely years away from developing it. The aircraft it does have has lost every head-to-head competition against the tanker EADS is offering the Air Force. By securing passage of the Boeing Bill, the merits of the two company's offerings won’t matter and the KC-X competition will be turned into the largest earmark in U.S. history. Furthermore, without competition, Boeing can charge the taxpayer what it wants with no assurances that the airplane it ultimately does develop is at the level of quality and capability that our men and women in uniform deserve. That’s a bill with a potential cost far too high to pay. To see the EADS North America KC-45 in flight and to learn more about the tanker competition, visit our website, wwwKCNow.com. The Boeing Bill: Episode 2 (Source: EADS North America; issued May 13, 2010) As part of what aviation analyst Scott Hamilton describes Scott Hamilton describesas “the strangest marketing campaign we’ve ever seen”, a bill will be introduced today in Congress that is designed to rob the warfighter of competitive choice and force a de facto sole source award to Boeing. Effectively a $35 billion earmark for Boeing, the legislation addresses a wide range of issues except the most important one: Ensuring the warfighter can choose the most capable tanker to meet its requirements. Boeing and its supporters studiously avoid discussing its proposed tanker – and instead raise a convoluted legislative smokescreen – for one simple reason: Boeing does not have a tanker that meets the Air Force’s needs, and won’t have one for the foreseeable future. Rather than engage in legislative shell games at the expense of American men and women in uniform, EADS North America is singularly focused on offering the US Air Force our KC-45, a real, proven and ready tanker aircraft. The KC-45 is the only tanker being offered to the Air Force that is certified and flying today. That is why the Boeing Bill seeks to prevent the Air Force from having an opportunity to select it. As Hamilton asks: “Why aren’t they talking about the airplane?...That’s what counts for the warfighter. If anybody bothers to remember them.” We remember, and we support the warfighters’ right to decide which tanker is best for them. -ends- JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
lequebecois
Inscrit le 11/02/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 04:04 | |
|
Salut Beochien, Au final, peut-être qu'un split 50-50 ou 60-40 (en faveur de Boeing) sera LA solution pour faire plaisir à (presque) tout le monde... _________________ Le bonheur est une pause entre deux emmerdes ! Adepte de la discutaille du coin du comptoir du café de la gare |
||
|
|
||
|
LightWeight
Inscrit le 28/12/2006 |
# 16 mai 2010 08:58 | |
|
Le RFP ne demande pas à faire plaisir à tout le monde, ça coûte nettement plus cher sur 50 ans! Se sont les militaires qui doivent se taper sur le ventre et, entre 2 scéances, se demander qu' est-ce qu' ils ont si mal écrit dans le RFP (mauvais anglais, fautes de frappe et d' orthographe), pour que l' un des concurrent n'y ait rien compris... |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 10:08 | |
|
Bonjour Je crois qu'Airbus, cette fois à parfaitement tout compris ... et ils ne feront pas de cadeaux Il vont obliger Boeing à tirer les prix sous le plancher ... pour gagner ! Grands gagnants ... L'USAF ! dans tous les cas ! JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
check!
Inscrit le 10/02/2010 |
# 16 mai 2010 10:18 | |
|
... Et EADS ils gagnent quoi dans l'histoire ? Le pentagone et l'USAF sont devenuent trop stupides ... les peres fondateurs se retournent dans leurs tombes ... |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 10:24 | |
|
EADS se gagne le droit au respect ... c'est déjà pas mal ! _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
check!
Inscrit le 10/02/2010 |
# 16 mai 2010 10:29 | |
|
Le contenu de ce message a été modéré suite au non respect des Conditions Générales d'Utilisation. |
||
|
|
||
|
check!
Inscrit le 10/02/2010 |
# 16 mai 2010 10:44 | |
|
Le contenu de ce message a été modéré suite au non respect des Conditions Générales d'Utilisation. |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 16 mai 2010 10:50 | |
|
Le contenu de ce message a été modéré suite au non respect des Conditions Générales d'Utilisation. |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
