Airbus wants a fair shot but they didn't give P&WC one!!

[teacher]

Is it just me or is it strange that Airbus is complaining about potentially being left out of the bidding process for new transports when it chose a European engine to power the A400 over P&WC engine for the sole reason that it was gonna be built in Europe? It was more expensive and not evenly matched with Pratt's engine yet Airbus chose out of political reasons! How quickly we forget or in many cases didn't know at all!

[teacher]

Airbus and Its Continued Subsidies By Europe (Part III) - The Case of Pratt & Whitney and the

Posted by: FredT
On: Thu December, 16 2004 @ 12:31 GMT
Despite attempts to point out that Airbus is a single corporation and has no ties to the European Union, it is very clear that this simply is not the case. A mere phone call by a EU politician can effect the fortunes of any number of companies. The most recent example of this fortress Europe mentality is the selection of the turboprop engines for the A400M military transport being built by Airbus.

Following the issue of specifications, Pratt & Whitney Canada submitted a bit to supply the engines and found itself in competing with a company called Europrop. Europrop was a company that had been created by MTU, Rolls Royce, Snecma, Industria de Turbo Propulsores. Pratt?s initial bid not only beat the Europrop bid by more than 20 percent, Airbus itself admitted that the proposed turboprops from BOTH sides were comparable in technical merit (1). Having been assured by Airbus officials that the contract was winnable based on unit price for the 750 engine contract, Pratt was confident that they would win.

To be told at the 11th hour and the 49th minute that a non-European engine would not be on the airplane is a bitter pill - George David, Chairman of Pratt?s parent company United Technologies

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledg ... 807909.htm

What had happened to the bid of Pratt?s? Under intense lobbying from the European governments directly involved in the project, despite that fact that the aircraft according to Airbus, was to be built on commercial terms (i.e. Bids would be submitted and governments would purchase the whole plane, not specify each item), Europrop with prior knowledge of Pratt?s bid and amounts was allowed to rebid. Pratt was not.

According to European news reports, Germany, France and Britain were ready to veto the Pratt choice. And French President Jacques Chirac said publicly that a European military plane should have European engines.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledg ... 807909.htm

Europrop received direct aid to bolster its bid in addition to the shady business practices of the EU and Airbus. In addition to providing political muscle the U.K. also provided aid in the form of came Dept. of Trade and Industry (DTI) providing research and development funding to Rolls-Royce for the TP400-D6 engine. (1)

it is very clear that the EU and Airbuses intent to actually have a real competition was totally a sham. They never intended to compete and their providing information and allowing a rebid of the contract by one party simply proves it. The Pratt design by Airbuses own admission was of comparable design yet in came in 20 percent cheaper. They allowed the European company to rebid with the knowledge of Pratt?s bid. Its shocking that they came in under. One has to wonder if the Europrop bid will require some for of subside to even break even. More likely it is yet another cog in the elaborate jobs program that Airbus is.

(1) Aviation Week & Space Technology 05/26/2003, page 66
(2) Aviation Week & Space Technology SHOWDOWN IN PARIS 05/12/2003, page 22

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
OP/ED: Airbus and Its Continued Subsidies By Europe (Part I)
OP/ED: Airbus and Its Continued Subsidies By Europe (Part II) - The 1992 LCAA and Japan

[EI-EIO]

teacher

perhaps the Europeans wanted to avoid having US-owned-company engines so they could sell to countries the US weren't friends with? Just guessing though.

[Yoyoma]

This line of argument is weak. The same can be said about Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer etc.

Airbus gives P&WC plenty of business. I do't see why they're in the wrong if they opt for a European engine manufacturer.

[WJflyer]

The main issue of Pratt not getting the contract for the engine is very similar to the Eurofighter Typhoon's selection of the more expensive Meteor missile over a extended range AMRAAM. The Europeans did not want their arms exports subject to American congressional approval, and using a engine from a American engine producer will make it subject. Also, keeping jobs in Europe, and developing its own arms industry was seen as important for the Europeans.

[. .]

WJFlyer: Always nice to have your informed input.

[WJflyer]

I'm a defence analyst at a think tank in my spare time. I recommend options and suggest reasonings for actions. I am also well aware of any major military projects, their capabilites, costs, and background behind the project.

[WJflyer]

Not to double post, but recently Pratt has burned Airbus bad with some projects. Take the Airbus A318. Airbus originally sourced the primary engine for it from Pratt (the PW6000), but Pratt ran into difficulties with the design, as it burned way more fuel than expected. By the time CFM had a engine ready, most A318 customers backed out. Only now has Pratt fixed the problems, and A318 orders are starting to come in.

[teacher]

If the engine is manufactured by P&W Canada was it designed here or state side? Just because the parent company is American if the technology is developed and built here is it still subject to restrictons?

In the end, I was just trying to strike up a conversation after reading Airbus complaining about the cargo aircraft tender being unfair.

[WJflyer]

It is still subject to export restrictions. Also, Airbus wasn't designing the A400M for North American markets, as the plane was designed in part to promote European self-sufficiency in arms. Any export sales was just icing on the cake. Also PWC is still a American company, despite having Canada as part of its name. PWC is part of United Technologies, a Hartford, Connecticut based company.

[Expat]

I agree with WJ's comments. The US are really shooting themselves in the feet with the arms export controls. They are effectively forcing a lot of off-shore manufacturers, including Israel's into developping their own technologies, in order to export. The latests arm and air shows were a real display of off-shore tachnology, that is available to export without restrictions. Now there is another lobby in Washington that is pushing for easing of these controls, in order to boost sales.
Cheers,

[Right Seat Captain]

Not to double post, but recently Pratt has burned Airbus bad with some projects. Take the Airbus A318. Airbus originally sourced the primary engine for it from Pratt (the PW6000), but Pratt ran into difficulties with the design, as it burned way more fuel than expected. By the time CFM had a engine ready, most A318 customers backed out. Only now has Pratt fixed the problems, and A318 orders are starting to come in.

Yeah, Airbus got burned by Pratt and Whitney, but the engine for the A400 is from Pratt and Whitney Canada. They are two very different entities. They have a similar name, but are not quite the same company.

[Yoyoma]

Yeah, Airbus got burned by Pratt and Whitney, but the engine for the A400 is from Pratt and Whitney Canada. They are two very different entities. They have a similar name, but are not quite the same company.

Are you sure? I'm no A400M expert but I believe the powerplant is a RR & Snecma (Safran Group) alliance with a Ratier-Figeac prop. The only "canadian" technology will come from Hispano-Suiza (Safran Group) in peterborough, the FADEC (Dual channel full authority digital engine control).

[Edo]

The American with arms exports are like the big kid in the sandbox. "Do what I say or im going to take my toys and go home" I cant blame Airbus for wanting to isolate themselves from that.

[teacher]

Terrible idea going with the C-17, they really should have considered the A400 instead also, was the P&WC engine going to also be brand new or was it gonna be based on an existing design?

Airbus Military battles to meet A400M first flight target

By Andrew Doyle

Engine-related development and integration issues continue to dog Airbus Military's efforts to prepare the A400M for its maiden flight, but the manufacturer remains optimistic it can get the transport airborne "this summer".

Speaking from the floor of Airbus parent EADS's purpose-built, 150,000m2 (1.61 million ft2) A400M final assembly building in Seville on 22 April, the head of the company's military transport aircraft division Carlos Suarez said work to prepare the aircraft's Europrop International TP400-D6 powerplant for flight remained "very challenging".

The four engines that will equip aircraft MSN001 have been undergoing "continuous work" since being delivered to Seville, but will be installed on the aircraft in time for its official roll-out ceremony on 26 June, he adds.

Images of A400M in AirSpace


Airframe MSN001 is fully assembled with full "power on" status and is undergoing systems testing in "station 35". The fuselage for MSN002 is about to be moved to the station 40 assembly jig, where its wings and empennage will be attached.

Obstacles on the "critical path" to the A400M first flight include the need to accumulate at least 50 flight hours with a TP400 installed on a Lockheed Martin C-130K testbed (to be operated by the UK's Marshall Aerospace), and problems completing development of the eight-bladed engine's full-authority digital engine control.

The C-130K-mounted TP400 test flights should have begun last year, but will not now start until late May or early June.

Meanwhile, the need to modify the TP400's high-pressure compressor (HPC) means that certification-standard engines will not be available until MSN004 takes to the air. "We expect to be in a position to fly the aircraft with the new HPC in the final engine configuration early next year," says Suarez.

With the benefit of hindsight, he admits that industry may have bitten off more than it could chew with the A400M development contract, given the technical and financial risks involved.

"For a programme of this scale and magnitude this is something we will never do again," he says. "It was probably not wise to launch such a large-scale aircraft programme in parallel with a completely new engine development programme."

The French air force is due to become the first A400M operator in April 2010, six months later than the originally contracted date, but Airbus Military has warned that the schedule remains subject to a possible further half-year slip. It has also made a euros 1.4 billion ($2.23 billion) provision to cover potential cost overruns.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... arget.html

[teacher]

I may be repaeting myself but was Pratt's offer of an engine based on an existing design or to be scratch built? Regardless I'm sure many people may have seen this coming when they were not selected in the last minute switch.

A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers
By Stephen Trimble

Airbus Military's revelation of further delays to the A400M's first flight obscures the timing of future deliveries and reveals new cracks in the relationship between the airframer and its propulsion supplier.

Airbus said the impact of the latest delay for the first flight, originally scheduled in January 2008, upon costs and delivery schedules can only be "reliably assessed" after further discussions with customers.

But the structure of the fixed-price development and production contract for the A400M exposes Airbus to heavy losses due to the costs of a prolonged development cycle and penalty payments by customers for missed delivery targets.


© Airbus Military


"This was bound to go horribly wrong," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst for the Teal Group. "It is to the best of my knowledge the only single fixed-price contract that covers both the procurement and development phases."

Before the delay announcement, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus parent EADS, reportedly hinted to customers that enforcing penalties for delays could cancel the programme. Industry sources suggest Airbus is unhappy at having to pay the penalties after the customer nations effectively forced it to accept a pan-European engine solution, which has proved unwieldy to manage through the development phase.

Customers are only one source of potential friction within the programme. Safran, a key member of the European consortium providing the TP400-D6 engine, issued a rare public rebuttal to Airbus's announcement of the delay.

Airbus blamed the first flight delay on the "unavailability of the propulsion system". The airframer also said the timing depends on a long-awaited test programme for a TP400-D6 mounted on a Lockheed Martin C-130 flying testbed. Safran, however, said the EuroProp International (EPI) consortium has delivered all of the engines for the programme, and the delay is actually caused by the lack of completed control software for the engines. The software code and the C-130 test campaign, Safran adds, "are the responsibility of Airbus Military".

The 12,000shp (8,940kW) TP400-D6, derated to 10,000shp for the A400M, is the most powerful turboprop engine ever produced by a Western manufacturer. Its full-authority digital engine control is being developed jointly by Safran and MTU Aero Engines, which declines to comment.

The A400M has amassed 192 orders from seven European countries, but the continued development problems have already stifled sales campaigns in Australia and Canada.

Another potential concern for Airbus is the delay's impact on the strategy to introduce the A400M to the North American market.

EADS North America wants the US Special Operations Command to consider the A400M as an alternative to the C-130J to replace dozens of HC/MC-130s. But the timing of decision means that the A400M must be ready to compete as early as late 2009.

TP400 FADEC faces challenges

Industry sources say two main issues have affected the development of the TP400's full-authority engine control.

First, about 100 engineering changes have been made to the airframe since the official design freeze, most of which had an impact on the operation of the engines. Secondly, completion of the FADEC software is dependent on the capture of 30-50h of flight test data aboard the TP400's Lockheed Martin C-130 testbed, which is yet to fly despite the engine having been declared flight-ready several months ago.

Once sufficient test data is available, the sources estimate it would take a further one to two months to complete the FADEC, but longer if any unexpected problems are encountered.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... omers.html