Airbus does not believe in continuing deliveries to Iran

Jouhou · Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:40 am

EvanWSFO wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

I don't think that would set well with the current administration in D.C. They might give Airbus in Mobile some grief. Things are very complicated, and seem to change quickly.

This is exactly why they should do it. Creating the appropriate supply chain would take a while anyways, and would give them independence from US whims. They could use their already established suppliers for what gets built in mobile, and create euro-fied aircraft back in Toulouse.

par13del · Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:28 am

Jouhou wrote:
This is exactly why they should do it. Creating the appropriate supply chain would take a while anyways, and would give them independence from US whims. They could use their already established suppliers for what gets built in mobile, and create euro-fied aircraft back in Toulouse.

Well, somehow the Europeans either lost the plot or elected for a different outcome, if you go back and look at the set up of Airbus it was to primarily ensure that an aviation industry remained in Europe and they not depend on the Americans, would be a good study to find out what went wrong.

jupiter2 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:04 am

par13del wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
This is exactly why they should do it. Creating the appropriate supply chain would take a while anyways, and would give them independence from US whims. They could use their already established suppliers for what gets built in mobile, and create euro-fied aircraft back in Toulouse.

Well, somehow the Europeans either lost the plot or elected for a different outcome, if you go back and look at the set up of Airbus it was to primarily ensure that an aviation industry remained in Europe and they not depend on the Americans, would be a good study to find out what went wrong.

Nothing too mysterious, it's just globalisation. The American companies are making the right products at the right price, so Airbus buy them. It's the same story with Boeing, plenty of parts are sourced from outside the U.S. because they fit the requirements and are cheaper than locally produced goods. It's all fine when there are "Free Trade" agreements, but when someone balks at the idea, or has disagreements with third parties, like in this case Iran, then it affects the whole supply chain.

Does anybody really think it is worthwhile to develop a whole new, probably more expensive supply base, because of a few lost orders to one realitively minor player in the worldwide aviation market ? Airbus has done the only logical choice in this scenario, whether anybody here believes it is right or wrong that they have had to make this decision is really academic, as there is bugger all we could do about it.

Aesma · Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:11 am

cpd wrote:
Does PSA even use any American parts? It only has Opel/Vauxhall from the former GM brands and the rest of the PSA lineup doesn't get sold to the USA anyway (they would be unlikely to be popular anyway).

PSA owns Faurecia which provides parts to all automakers and has locations in the USA.

Blerg · Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:29 am

The European Union was clear on this matter, they want European companies to continue doing business with Iran. Airbus might be publicly stating this but I am sure they are working with Brussels behind closed doors. It's only a matter of time before they find a way around it.

Once other countries start imposing heavy tariffs on US products, the Trump administration will have to reconsider its role as the global economic policeman. It's one thing when your decisions affect your nation but it's a whole different matter when you affect those who have nothing to do with you or with your country. Most European countries have had economic ties with Iran even before the US was born.

tjcab · Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:14 am

ltbewr wrote:
The real danger of the embargo on the sales of commercial aircraft with any USA content to Iran, that while politically popular here puts - and has put - persons in grave danger. The lack of USA content systems caused in part the USA Navy shoot down of an Iran Air A300 over the Persian Gulf killing all 200 or so aboard many years ago. If any Iran based aircraft operate, they may be using bootleg or other sourced or made parts that do not meet specifications, also putting flyers and crews at risk. It also means not getting for the USA or Europe $1B+ in new and near future sales of aircraft, lost revenue and profits for Airbus, Boeing, supplier companies, millions in person-hours in paychecks lost too.

Oh good grief, where do I begin? Please substantiate your claims of bootlegged parts etc, or don't make them at all.

Iran Air Flight 655 had 290 souls on board. The Vincennes mistook the A300 civilian airliner for an F-14, on a descent trajectory. The A300 had just taken off on its way to Dubai. Long story short, grave errors on the part of the Navy caused this tragedy. Read the report. Even the U.S.S Sides' personnel identified it ad Flight 655 and an office on board the Vincennes suggested to his commanding officer the possibility of a commercial flight. Other officers indicated that the A300's altitude was decreasing while speed increasing, however, the Vincennes' systems data indicated that the A300 was still climbing. Btw, the airbus was exactly where ii was supposed to be.

Lets not even get into reason why the warships were there, and as a result of what, you can research that on your own.

Please don't blame Iran Air on this one. Oh, the crew of the Vincennes were celebrated as heroes.

WIederling · Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:44 am

par13del wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
This is exactly why they should do it. Creating the appropriate supply chain would take a while anyways, and would give them independence from US whims. They could use their already established suppliers for what gets built in mobile, and create euro-fied aircraft back in Toulouse.

Well, somehow the Europeans either lost the plot or elected for a different outcome, if you go back and look at the set up of Airbus it was to primarily ensure that an aviation industry remained in Europe and they not depend on the Americans, would be a good study to find out what went wrong.

Not much.
Foreign parts content isn't much different for Boeing ( than what Airbus sees ).

What the Euros missed out on is that "Free Trade" for the US is a nice front, a Potemkin Facade.
( turns in your face obvious now that "Free Trade" table tilting doesn't work out for the US anymore. result :: MAGA )
What the Euros also missed out on is that "Obama: US will turn its attention to Asia/Pacifica" only
could make sense if the European fringe was up in flames first.

Jouhou · Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:31 am

WIederling wrote:
par13del wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
This is exactly why they should do it. Creating the appropriate supply chain would take a while anyways, and would give them independence from US whims. They could use their already established suppliers for what gets built in mobile, and create euro-fied aircraft back in Toulouse.

Well, somehow the Europeans either lost the plot or elected for a different outcome, if you go back and look at the set up of Airbus it was to primarily ensure that an aviation industry remained in Europe and they not depend on the Americans, would be a good study to find out what went wrong.

Not much.
Foreign parts content isn't much different for Boeing ( than what Airbus sees ).

What the Euros missed out on is that "Free Trade" for the US is a nice front, a Potemkin Facade.
( turns in your face obvious now that "Free Trade" table tilting doesn't work out for the US anymore. result :: MAGA )
What the Euros also missed out on is that "Obama: US will turn its attention to Asia/Pacifica" only
could make sense if the European fringe was up in flames first.

Free trade still benefits the US. The problem is the average person is both broke and disinterested in looking at statistics for their selves and will blame whoever their leadership tells them to blame ( IE: you're broke because of globalists, not because our economic policies are funneling wealth to the already wealthy)

I want Europe to strengthen their selves so I don't have to be so embarrassed when the USA has these political mood swings.

par13del · Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:51 am

Except all this globalization talk is recent and does not change the fact that Airbus was set up to preserve the industry in Europe, I guess we can also blame globalization for the government selling off and transferring their shares...hmmm, when exactly did globalization start?
The failed trade agreement with the USA was to see the EU have a greater than 50% stake, if globalization was the thing the reason for mandating the percentage was what, to create or preserve EU jobs?

Revelation · Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:42 pm

stratocruiser wrote:
Europe needs to work towards the day when they have a ‘self-contained’ aircraft industry, free from the need to use components from the USA or any other country that can hold it to ransom. The European aviation industry has already proven that it has the knowledge and the ability to produce superb and innovative airliners which have enabled it to secure a large proportion of the market but now it is important to consolidate component production within the EU so that no other state has the ability to control where European aircraft can be sold.

Shortly Airbus wings will be EU imports. Guess you have to sort that one out. Next, EU would need to source raw materials exclusively. Looks like EU will need to ramp up its investment in titanium mining ( https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top ... tries.html ).

MIflyer12 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:12 pm

stratocruiser wrote:
Europe needs to work towards the day when they have a ‘self-contained’ aircraft industry, free from the need to use components from the USA or any other country that can hold it to ransom. The European aviation industry has already proven that it has the knowledge and the ability to produce superb and innovative airliners which have enabled it to secure a large proportion of the market but now it is important to consolidate component production within the EU so that no other state has the ability to control where European aircraft can be sold.

Airbus (not 'Europe') is welcome to do that. It just needs to accept that once it sells aircraft to U.S.-embargoed countries that all sales to U.S. firms will be stopped, as will access to the U.S. banking system. Does Airbus want to sell a few dozen aircraft to Iran, or hundreds to AA/UA/DL/Spirit/Frontier?

mwhcvt · Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:57 pm

Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

Conceivably there could be certification issues given that 40% or so components come from the USA assuming that you could source replacements from somewhere other than the USA or USA owned corporation it could require an entire recitification process on the airframe or at least extensive additional certification, and I can only imagine getting that FAA certified could be a challenge

So what do you do, build an aircraft that will not be allowed to fly to or within one of if not the largest aviation market in the world or lose a small number of frame sales to a nation such as Iran...

Not to get past however the absurdity of a nation who bangs on about free markets and freedom at every opportunity right up until it goes against them

2175301 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:07 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
stratocruiser wrote:
Europe needs to work towards the day when they have a ‘self-contained’ aircraft industry, free from the need to use components from the USA or any other country that can hold it to ransom. The European aviation industry has already proven that it has the knowledge and the ability to produce superb and innovative airliners which have enabled it to secure a large proportion of the market but now it is important to consolidate component production within the EU so that no other state has the ability to control where European aircraft can be sold.

Airbus (not 'Europe') is welcome to do that. It just needs to accept that once it sells aircraft to U.S.-embargoed countries that all sales to U.S. firms will be stopped, as will access to the U.S. banking system. Does Airbus want to sell a few dozen aircraft to Iran, or hundreds to AA/UA/DL/Spirit/Frontier?

The question is much larger than the Airbus sale to Iran. That's overall small potatoes. I am sure that the real questions being asked by the EU and other countries is do they wish to be able to conduct a lot of international commerce free of US political swings... For now, Airbus will forgo the Iran order. Long term is the entire EU going to start to source all kinds of products and services from outside the US. The US Banking System is not that necessary. The Swiss banking system can easily step in for international commerce - and is accepted worldwide without any political issues.

The US could find itself very much an island nation that only a few other countries trade a few things within 5 years... if President Trump can fulfill what I perceive to be his vision (America will then be "Great" as it will not need to depend on other countries: I also personally believe overall poorer - but, "Great" by President Trumps view).

Have a great day,

WIederling · Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:25 pm

2175301 wrote:
The US Banking System is not that necessary. The Swiss banking system can easily step in for international commerce - and is accepted worldwide without any political issues.

Currently there is an expansive move by the US to claim any transaction in US-dollars to be bound to US legal constraints.

Siddar · Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:51 pm

The US could find itself very much an island nation that only a few other countries trade a few things within 5 years... if President Trump can fulfill what I perceive to be his vision (America will then be "Great" as it will not need to depend on other countries: I also personally believe overall poorer - but, "Great" by President Trumps view).

Have a great day,

That not how globalism works. First you would have to deal with the withdrawal of 2 trillion in exports to the US. Then you would have replace 1.2 trillion rest of world imports from the US. You would have rather large problems in feeding rest of world as primary concern. Then you would have to replace all of the manufactured goods some of witch only come from the US.

The US would actually do better then the rest of world out of such a situation replace 2 trillion in imports from the rest of world while giving up 1.2 trillion in return is such a large positive that it will compensate some what for the loss. The rest of world will be dealing with large reduction in total economic activity and the secondary impacts that would follow. First would as I said trying to feed everyone with out US food imports.

Virtual737 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:21 pm

O'er the land of the free (except for when the government tells us where we can and cannot fly and tells our aerospace companies to whom they can and cannot sell) and the home of the brave?

Jayafe · Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:39 pm

777PHX wrote:
Iran is also a state sponsor of terrorism.

Also the US is, and has been (admitted by the US itself) for the last 60 years in several continents. Call it diplomacy or hypocrisy?

Flyglobal · Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:52 am

Siddar wrote:
The US could find itself very much an island nation that only a few other countries trade a few things within 5 years... if President Trump can fulfill what I perceive to be his vision (America will then be "Great" as it will not need to depend on other countries: I also personally believe overall poorer - but, "Great" by President Trumps view).

Have a great day,

That not how globalism works. First you would have to deal with the withdrawal of 2 trillion in exports to the US. Then you would have replace 1.2 trillion rest of world imports from the US. You would have rather large problems in feeding rest of world as primary concern. Then you would have to replace all of the manufactured goods some of witch only come from the US.

The US would actually do better then the rest of world out of such a situation replace 2 trillion in imports from the rest of world while giving up 1.2 trillion in return is such a large positive that it will compensate some what for the loss. The rest of world will be dealing with large reduction in total economic activity and the secondary impacts that would follow. First would as I said trying to feed everyone with out US food imports.

Good to have someone here who fully injected Trump and Fox News math.
Have a great day.

Flyglobal

Jayafe · Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:47 pm

Flyglobal wrote:
Siddar wrote:
.....

Good to have someone here who fully injected Trump and Fox News math.
Have a great day.

Flyglobal

You sure you didnt mean meth?

YIMBY · Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:18 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Does Airbus want to sell a few dozen aircraft to Iran, or hundreds to AA/UA/DL/Spirit/Frontier?

Airbus is so dear to EU leaders, particularly French and German, that they would defend it with countermeasures. If USA stops Airbus sales to the US, for sure no Boeing will be delivered to Europe.

Strato2 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:32 pm

Siddar wrote:
Then you would have to replace all of the manufactured goods some of witch only come from the US.

Most of the stuff US produces like automobiles are horrible and easily replaced. They are mainly good at producing things meant to kill people.

Flyglobal · Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:50 pm

YIMBY wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Does Airbus want to sell a few dozen aircraft to Iran, or hundreds to AA/UA/DL/Spirit/Frontier?

Airbus is so dear to EU leaders, particularly French and German, that they would defend it with countermeasures. If USA stops Airbus sales to the US, for sure no Boeing will be delivered to Europe.

In planes and aviation goods the US has a trade surplus. So adding tarifs to planes may not be a good idea of the Trump administration.

Flyglobal

JoeCanuck · Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:58 pm

YIMBY wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Does Airbus want to sell a few dozen aircraft to Iran, or hundreds to AA/UA/DL/Spirit/Frontier?

Airbus is so dear to EU leaders, particularly French and German, that they would defend it with countermeasures. If USA stops Airbus sales to the US, for sure no Boeing will be delivered to Europe.

Remember...it's not just the EU that the US has started a trade war with; it's China, Canada and Mexico as well...and trade works both ways. That's a lot of customers for a lot of US goods. And...what happens to the American jobs associated with selling imported goods? Trade is a lot more complex than just the balance of trade.

If, hypothetically, Airbus decided to go 100% non American with it's aircraft. What happens to the thousands of American companies and hundreds of thousands of American workers than depend on making parts for, or even assembling, Airbus products? Most of Boeing's sales are overseas. Without those customers...what happens next?

Sure...the US could be self sufficient with food...but the US already produces way more food than it needs. So what happens to the agriculture industries if those export customers, and dollars, went away?

Economies are so integrated that no country could exist in isolation.

c933103 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:01 pm

Siddar wrote:
The US could find itself very much an island nation that only a few other countries trade a few things within 5 years... if President Trump can fulfill what I perceive to be his vision (America will then be "Great" as it will not need to depend on other countries: I also personally believe overall poorer - but, "Great" by President Trumps view).

Have a great day,

That not how globalism works. First you would have to deal with the withdrawal of 2 trillion in exports to the US. Then you would have replace 1.2 trillion rest of world imports from the US. You would have rather large problems in feeding rest of world as primary concern. Then you would have to replace all of the manufactured goods some of witch only come from the US.

The US would actually do better then the rest of world out of such a situation replace 2 trillion in imports from the rest of world while giving up 1.2 trillion in return is such a large positive that it will compensate some what for the loss. The rest of world will be dealing with large reduction in total economic activity and the secondary impacts that would follow. First would as I said trying to feed everyone with out US food imports.

See what happens to the Imperial China after they did that? The economic scale in a single country will always be less than economy of scale for the entire world. Do you think Boeing can justify any of their aircraft research investments if there are no international sales?

strfyr51 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:08 pm

N14AZ wrote:
As the title says, Airbus does not believe it will be able to deliver additional aircraft to Iran due to the expected sanctions.
Source, just in German language: https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/artic ... haeft.html

Best regards
N14AZ

Of course they don't President Trump would Slap the Fool out of them with Fines, Embargoes, and all manner of stuff if they did. up to and including their contracts in the USA if NOT their Assembly plant. Whether they want to or NOT? They're going to go along with whatever he says and hope for a DEMOCRAT in a few years.
" Our Business is Business" !!

JoeCanuck · Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:22 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
As the title says, Airbus does not believe it will be able to deliver additional aircraft to Iran due to the expected sanctions.
Source, just in German language: https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/artic ... haeft.html

Best regards
N14AZ

Of course they don't President Trump would Slap the Fool out of them with Fines, Embargoes, and all manner of stuff if they did. up to and including their contracts in the USA if NOT their Assembly plant. Whether they want to or NOT? They're going to go along with whatever he says and hope for a DEMOCRAT in a few years.
" Our Business is Business" !!

Principles are fine until they start costing money. The EU will cave like a sand castle at high tide. That being said, in the long term, this will push more countries to diversify their sources and customers. Unfortunately, fortress Europe isn't all that cohesive and they, like the rest of the world, is basically caught between the rock of the US and the hard place of China.

LTU932 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:48 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Airbus is so dear to EU leaders, particularly French and German, that they would defend it with countermeasures. If USA stops Airbus sales to the US, for sure no Boeing will be delivered to Europe.

That's all cheap populism. Let's face it, if Airbus is told to disregard the sanctions, and then the US reacts with sanctions against Airbus, this will lead to mass layoffs (not just at Airbus directly, but also at their suppliers). France and Germany should let Airbus have more freedom in making business decisions. Plus if the Iranian airlines did not even make the initial deposit on those aircraft, then business wise, I'd consider them NTU and eventually look for people who want to take them.

We're coming off an economic crisis that started 10 years ago. Let us NOT start another one with Berlin and Paris imposing cheap populist measures involving one of the biggest employers in Europe.

JoeCanuck · Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:33 am

LTU932 wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Airbus is so dear to EU leaders, particularly French and German, that they would defend it with countermeasures. If USA stops Airbus sales to the US, for sure no Boeing will be delivered to Europe.
That's all cheap populism. Let's face it, if Airbus is told to disregard the sanctions, and then the US reacts with sanctions against Airbus, this will lead to mass layoffs (not just at Airbus directly, but also at their suppliers). France and Germany should let Airbus have more freedom in making business decisions. Plus if the Iranian airlines did not even make the initial deposit on those aircraft, then business wise, I'd consider them NTU and eventually look for people who want to take them.

We're coming off an economic crisis that started 10 years ago. Let us NOT start another one with Berlin and Paris imposing cheap populist measures involving one of the biggest employers in Europe.

Sanctions against Airbus are also sanctions against the US companies and workers that make up half the content of Airbus products.

FlyHappy · Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:53 am

Blerg wrote:
The European Union was clear on this matter, they want European companies to continue doing business with Iran. Airbus might be publicly stating this but I am sure they are working with Brussels behind closed doors. It's only a matter of time before they find a way around it.

Once other countries start imposing heavy tariffs on US products, the Trump administration will have to reconsider its role as the global economic policeman. It's one thing when your decisions affect your nation but it's a whole different matter when you affect those who have nothing to do with you or with your country. Most European countries have had economic ties with Iran even before the US was born.

um, not really.
Feel free to use modern history to support your desire for non-interference in EU-Iranian ties, but distant history isn't going to support you.

UK, France, Spain may have been in existence in recognizable form at the time of the US birth, but all were absolute monarchies and those "ties" were hardly more than imperialistic silk-road trading; note that all were "Empires" (including the Persian Empire), meaning that wealth and commerce was usually derived from the weak (by force), not the strong. Most European countries didn't even exist in the current state at that point.

While European and Persian culture and settlement may far predate the US, the government, economics, and core foreign policy constructs of the US are far older than that of Europe, and for that matter - most of the world.

Point is, there's no historical underpinning to support the notion that Europe is historically "close" to Iran.

Fast forward to today - the EU wants continued, steady access to Iranian hydrocarbon resources (reduce dependance on Russia) every bit or more as much as they would like independance from US politics.

No country will start a trade war/punitive tariffs against the US over (temporary) lost opportunity in Iran. No one would do it over trade with ANY market - save China (or the EU itself).

A.net needs to take a deep breath; airplane sales is really small potatoes in the world of geo-politics. Someday down the road, Iran will take delivery of their Airbuses, and amazingly probably of some Boeing, too.

As far as what the EU broadly cares about - complete self determination of foreign/economic policy (which is really your point), that's never going to happen until the EU adopts a single voice, single policy, singular will. The EU, for all its wealth and human capital, will always play second, third or fourth fiddle to US, China, Russia in these matters, unless they are willing to fully consummate their union

Blerg · Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:28 am

FlyHappy wrote:
Blerg wrote:
The European Union was clear on this matter, they want European companies to continue doing business with Iran. Airbus might be publicly stating this but I am sure they are working with Brussels behind closed doors. It's only a matter of time before they find a way around it.

Once other countries start imposing heavy tariffs on US products, the Trump administration will have to reconsider its role as the global economic policeman. It's one thing when your decisions affect your nation but it's a whole different matter when you affect those who have nothing to do with you or with your country. Most European countries have had economic ties with Iran even before the US was born.

um, not really.
Feel free to use modern history to support your desire for non-interference in EU-Iranian ties, but distant history isn't going to support you.

UK, France, Spain may have been in existence in recognizable form at the time of the US birth, but all were absolute monarchies and those "ties" were hardly more than imperialistic silk-road trading; note that all were "Empires" (including the Persian Empire), meaning that wealth and commerce was usually derived from the weak (by force), not the strong. Most European countries didn't even exist in the current state at that point.

While European and Persian culture and settlement may far predate the US, the government, economics, and core foreign policy constructs of the US are far older than that of Europe, and for that matter - most of the world.

Point is, there's no historical underpinning to support the notion that Europe is historically "close" to Iran.

Fast forward to today - the EU wants continued, steady access to Iranian hydrocarbon resources (reduce dependance on Russia) every bit or more as much as they would like independance from US politics.

No country will start a trade war/punitive tariffs against the US over (temporary) lost opportunity in Iran. No one would do it over trade with ANY market - save China (or the EU itself).

A.net needs to take a deep breath; airplane sales is really small potatoes in the world of geo-politics. Someday down the road, Iran will take delivery of their Airbuses, and amazingly probably of some Boeing, too.

As far as what the EU broadly cares about - complete self determination of foreign/economic policy (which is really your point), that's never going to happen until the EU adopts a single voice, single policy, singular will. The EU, for all its wealth and human capital, will always play second, third or fourth fiddle to US, China, Russia in these matters, unless they are willing to fully consummate their union

First of all, it's absolutely wrong that the Silk Road was some sort of extractive system that was only used by evil European empires to rob the weak defenseless Asians. The Silk Road was basically a collection of resting/trading towns and cities where merchants stopped on their way from China to Europe. Goods were traded normally and Europeans bought things like Chinese porcelain at fair prices while Vikings made a lot of money from selling European slaves to their Asian customers.
I think you confused it with spice trade which was mostly run by large companies (Dutch East India Company for example) who set up trading colonies throughout the world.

Just because those European empires no longer exist doesn't mean their legacy doesn't live on. Take the diplomatic service that was established by Richelieu, it was the basis upon which modern ministries of foreign affairs were founded. European politics is all about continuity in many different aspects - same applies to our relationship with Iran. When I say that we are historically close to Iran, I meant that we have enough historic knowledge and experience to find our way around the region. Like I said, empires might not be around anymore but their legacy lives on. Diplomats at French, British, German ... ministries of foreign affairs can draw lessons from their predecessors and how they managed to secure lucrative deals (both political and economic) in the past. Political circumstances might have changed but European or Persian mentality has remained mostly unchanged.

In the end, the EU might play second fiddle but only until it gets back all the capital it lost during the two World Wars. US' rise to global dominance came at the expense of Europe which decided to self-destruct twice in a period of just 40 years. The European Union doesn't need full political and social hegemony to dominate, it just needs to recover from the two world wars. I don't think we are far from that point really as it is seen by European stance on Israel, war in Syria or even the relationship with Iran. The US is losing it's grip on the continent especially when faced with growing Chinese influence. So the EU might be playing second fiddle to the US and others but to me it seems like it's the US playing second fiddle when it comes to China.

In the end, Airbus, just like many other European companies, will not give up on Iran. They will use their political influence to find a way to do business with them. Economic exchange between Iran and the European Union is booming and this trend will only continue in the future.

FlyHappy · Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:10 am

Blerg wrote:
First of all, it's absolutely wrong that the Silk Road was some sort of extractive system that was only used by evil European empires to rob the weak defenseless Asians. The Silk Road was basically a collection of resting/trading towns and cities where merchants stopped on their way from China to Europe. Goods were traded normally and Europeans bought things like Chinese porcelain at fair prices while Vikings made a lot of money from selling European slaves to their Asian customers.
I think you confused it with spice trade which was mostly run by large companies (Dutch East India Company for example) who set up trading colonies throughout the world.

I wasn't tying the two together, even if I ran my sentence together (and miscited "silk road"). I was trying to point out that the legacy European and Persian empires gained their wealth and influence in separate ways, and not due to any historic economic ties which you stated. Not sure why you've invoked words such as "evil" and "weak defenseless Asians", and I've made no such inferences.

Blerg wrote:
Just because those European empires no longer exist doesn't mean their legacy doesn't live on. Take the diplomatic service that was established by Richelieu, it was the basis upon which modern ministries of foreign affairs were founded. European politics is all about continuity in many different aspects - same applies to our relationship with Iran. When I say that we are historically close to Iran, I meant that we have enough historic knowledge and experience to find our way around the region. Like I said, empires might not be around anymore but their legacy lives on. Diplomats at French, British, German ... ministries of foreign affairs can draw lessons from their predecessors and how they managed to secure lucrative deals (both political and economic) in the past. Political circumstances might have changed but European or Persian mentality has remained mostly unchanged.

There's no continuity between European diplomacy of today, and that of 1776, or 1789 or whatever year you recognize as the birth of the US. Recall that I am disputing your notion that "Most European countries have had economic ties with Iran even before the US was born" - most European countries weren't even in existence at that time. I've noticed that many people bristle at the idea that the US is among the oldest established countries (as defined by continued governance, and thus foreign/economic policy, good and bad) in existence.

Blerg wrote:
In the end, the EU might play second fiddle but only until it gets back all the capital it lost during the two World Wars. US' rise to global dominance came at the expense of Europe which decided to self-destruct twice in a period of just 40 years. The European Union doesn't need full political and social hegemony to dominate, it just needs to recover from the two world wars.

Interesting to read that you really believe US rise "came at the expense of Europe" - that's quite a zero-sum stretch. Even more, that you don't consider Europe as yet recovered from the 20th century wars, and that it has capital to regain?

Back to aviation: Airbus would not be where it is now, or in the future without US content, nor would Boeing be what it is without Europe.

Blerg · Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:04 am

FlyHappy wrote:
Blerg wrote:
First of all, it's absolutely wrong that the Silk Road was some sort of extractive system that was only used by evil European empires to rob the weak defenseless Asians. The Silk Road was basically a collection of resting/trading towns and cities where merchants stopped on their way from China to Europe. Goods were traded normally and Europeans bought things like Chinese porcelain at fair prices while Vikings made a lot of money from selling European slaves to their Asian customers.
I think you confused it with spice trade which was mostly run by large companies (Dutch East India Company for example) who set up trading colonies throughout the world.

I wasn't tying the two together, even if I ran my sentence together (and miscited "silk road"). I was trying to point out that the legacy European and Persian empires gained their wealth and influence in separate ways, and not due to any historic economic ties which you stated. Not sure why you've invoked words such as "evil" and "weak defenseless Asians", and I've made no such inferences.

Blerg wrote:
Just because those European empires no longer exist doesn't mean their legacy doesn't live on. Take the diplomatic service that was established by Richelieu, it was the basis upon which modern ministries of foreign affairs were founded. European politics is all about continuity in many different aspects - same applies to our relationship with Iran. When I say that we are historically close to Iran, I meant that we have enough historic knowledge and experience to find our way around the region. Like I said, empires might not be around anymore but their legacy lives on. Diplomats at French, British, German ... ministries of foreign affairs can draw lessons from their predecessors and how they managed to secure lucrative deals (both political and economic) in the past. Political circumstances might have changed but European or Persian mentality has remained mostly unchanged.

There's no continuity between European diplomacy of today, and that of 1776, or 1789 or whatever year you recognize as the birth of the US. Recall that I am disputing your notion that "Most European countries have had economic ties with Iran even before the US was born" - most European countries weren't even in existence at that time. I've noticed that many people bristle at the idea that the US is among the oldest established countries (as defined by continued governance, and thus foreign/economic policy, good and bad) in existence.

Blerg wrote:
In the end, the EU might play second fiddle but only until it gets back all the capital it lost during the two World Wars. US' rise to global dominance came at the expense of Europe which decided to self-destruct twice in a period of just 40 years. The European Union doesn't need full political and social hegemony to dominate, it just needs to recover from the two world wars.

Interesting to read that you really believe US rise "came at the expense of Europe" - that's quite a zero-sum stretch. Even more, that you don't consider Europe as yet recovered from the 20th century wars, and that it has capital to regain?

Back to aviation: Airbus would not be where it is now, or in the future without US content, nor would Boeing be what it is without Europe.

Of course there is continuity, do you honestly think countries start over once they 'rebrand' themselves? Do you think Tsarists legacy was completely whipped out after the October Revolution? Do you think modern day Austria wasn't, in any way, shaped by its Austro-Hungarian legacy? So all of that is lost because somehow they no longer have an emperor sitting on the throne in Vienna? Or do you think Napoleonic legacy no longer exists, not only in France but elsewhere in Europe as well? What about the British Commonwealth that's alive and kicking despite the British Empire being long gone?
Same principle applies to foreign relations and diplomacy. I see that you are an American and the fact your country is still in its infancy might be hard to understand such concepts. The US was founded some 240 years ago. How long was the Roman Empire around before it collapsed? What about the Byzantines? All I am saying is that when the US manages to remain continuous for more than 500 years then we can speak about it being an absolute success.

US' global domination came at the expense of Europe. How much influence did they US get thanks to the Marshall Plan? How much money did American companies earn by entering the European markets right after the Second World War when Europeans were in no position to compete on an equal footing? How much money did Boeing earn before it got any real competition out there? Circumstances after the War propelled the US to a global leader. Of course Europe hasn't recovered from the wars, it takes decades and decades to do it, you seem not to know the extent to which the continent was ravaged. That said, Europe is almost there as is best seen by how competitive its industry has become. Actually, they have become so competitive that your president is forced to impose tariffs on our goods and even mention that he will ban German cars.

Anyway, I don't want to take this discussion off topic but I felt it was important to look at the Euro-Persian relationship from a wider angle.

Regards.

LTU932 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:58 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Sanctions against Airbus are also sanctions against the US companies and workers that make up half the content of Airbus products.

And that is another point to consider. If the EU, despite my predictions, does go ahead and forces Airbus to do business with Iran, this could also have a significant impact on US companies involved as Airbus suppliers if the US retaliates with sanctions against Airbus. Too much of the world's economy is intertwined with each other today. Then again, as long as someome like Jean-Claude Juncker is still around and many of the old guard in Brussels, chances are that the EU may do something stupid. I've always supported the EU, but now more than ever, it's becoming a bureaucratic monster that is also involved in unnecessary tit-for-tat policies (not just now in this trade issue, see also how they treat Facebook as the devil for anything they do, not just the Cambridge Analytica thing) and it will cost the (in the future) remaining 27 EU nations dearly.

YIMBY · Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:10 am

LTU932 wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Airbus is so dear to EU leaders, particularly French and German, that they would defend it with countermeasures. If USA stops Airbus sales to the US, for sure no Boeing will be delivered to Europe.
That's all cheap populism. Let's face it, if Airbus is told to disregard the sanctions, and then the US reacts with sanctions against Airbus, this will lead to mass layoffs (not just at Airbus directly, but also at their suppliers). France and Germany should let Airbus have more freedom in making business decisions. Plus if the Iranian airlines did not even make the initial deposit on those aircraft, then business wise, I'd consider them NTU and eventually look for people who want to take them.

We're coming off an economic crisis that started 10 years ago. Let us NOT start another one with Berlin and Paris imposing cheap populist measures involving one of the biggest employers in Europe.

Do not expect European politicians to behave rationally, not even German. They do have their egos and they have already lost their faces with Trump (not as badly as Canada, though). After G6 Trump has insulted both Germany and France. If the politicians in charge do not counteract, their opposition will ridiculize them.

Iran itself has relatively little commercial value (the Airbus deal may not have realized anyway, due to lack of money) but much more symbolic value. The big thing is the trade war that Trump declares to win while no other leader can appear as a loser. The aviation industry will not escape that.

Kiwirob · Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:43 am

N14AZ wrote:
As the title says, Airbus does not believe it will be able to deliver additional aircraft to Iran due to the expected sanctions.
Source, just in German language: https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/artic ... haeft.html

Best regards
N14AZ

This bugs me know end that an EU company is forced into following sanctions which are uncalled for and unjust, I'd love to see the EU grow a backbone and sanction the shit out of the US.

WIederling · Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:01 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
What happens to the thousands of American companies and hundreds of thousands of American workers than depend on making parts for, or even assembling, Airbus products? Most of Boeing's sales are overseas. Without those customers...what happens next?

First order change would be producing for Boeing instead.( replacing EU products. currently this are market segments
with strong "cross flow". )

Only the industries/products that show unidirectional flow have potential for large problems and thus leverage.
( Will the US start a "wheat war" forcing other nations to take their agricultural exports?
If those exports are lost fly over country will start to glow with a vengeance. )

FlyHappy · Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:51 pm

Hey Blerg - your Pan-Europeanism is showing!

Blerg wrote:
Of course there is continuity, do you honestly think countries start over once they 'rebrand' themselves? Do you think Tsarists legacy was completely whipped out after the October Revolution? Do you think modern day Austria wasn't, in any way, shaped by its Austro-Hungarian legacy?
...
Same principle applies to foreign relations and diplomacy.

Russia isn't Europe. Not in this or most contexts.
Today's Austrian economic and foreign policies have no relation or continuity from the Hapsburgs. Nor any other European country (all of which are younger political entities than the US) save the possibility of England; no reason to be sensitive about it.

Blerg wrote:
I see that you are an American and the fact your country is still in its infancy might be hard to understand such concepts.

uh -huh. Born, raised and educated in the East, where our calender is older then Europe. I see the world with a different eye than you assume.

Blerg wrote:
The US was founded some 240 years ago. How long was the Roman Empire around before it collapsed? What about the Byzantines? All I am saying is that when the US manages to remain continuous for more than 500 years then we can speak about it being an absolute success.

Who said anything about "absolute success"?
We're talking Iran....... do you think todays Iran has any warmer feelings towards your Hapsburg, Holy Roman or other legacies? I don't. I think they are pragmatic, and will buy from who they can, and sell their goods (heavily hydrocarbons, to be sure) where they can.

I'd love to discuss world history with you and our very widely divergent views on the not so distant past, but it would bore others to tears, and isn't relevant at all to the topic of the aviation industry and what/why/how of doing business with Iran.

Globalism has its good and bad points, but its pretty narrow to not acknowledge that globalism produces better aircraft (and virtually anything high tech) than not.

Bald1983 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:24 pm

Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

That would be, indeed, a very stupid thing to do. First, you are advocating Airbus abandoning the largest economy in the World, for an impoverished nation that is going to have to fight for its own survival. I have to assume your hatred of the United States helps shape your view.

Lootess · Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:07 pm

EvanWSFO wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

I don't think that would set well with the current administration in D.C. They might give Airbus in Mobile some grief. Things are very complicated, and seem to change quickly.

The distractors always forget that Airbus has the Mobile, Alabama plant, that also relies on France. It's not a "how do we shut out the US" question, and never will be.

EvanWSFO · Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:20 pm

Lootess wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

I don't think that would set well with the current administration in D.C. They might give Airbus in Mobile some grief. Things are very complicated, and seem to change quickly.

The distractors always forget that Airbus has the Mobile, Alabama plant, that also relies on France. It's not a "how do we shut out the US" question, and never will be.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but hey that's cool.

LTU932 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:24 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Do not expect European politicians to behave rationally, not even German.

Much less German politicians, especially in the current situation where the federal government may be about to collapse, with the prospect of early elections looming (but that's because of the immigration situation, not the trade problems).

I miss the days when a politician would give a clear and easy to understand response (even if it's a Yes or a No), nowadays they just evade questions.

Lootess wrote:
The distractors always forget that Airbus has the Mobile, Alabama plant, that also relies on France. It's not a "how do we shut out the US" question, and never will be.

And that is something I almost forgot myself. If Airbus disregards the sanctions (like the EU wants in general by forcing EU companies to do so) and the US retaliates with an export ban of US components to Airbus, it will inevitably also lead to layoffs in Mobile, if not even a full shutdown of the entire plant. But as YIMBY pointed out, we should not expect European politicians to behave rationally.

Jouhou · Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:53 am

Bald1983 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

That would be, indeed, a very stupid thing to do. First, you are advocating Airbus abandoning the largest economy in the World, for an impoverished nation that is going to have to fight for its own survival. I have to assume your hatred of the United States helps shape your view.

Absolutely not. I care deeply about the US (i'm american) but I also value our allies when we are going through turbulent times and am simply saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Uniformity is cheaper but diversification is safer in an unstable world. I'm not saying this because of Iran, rather they would be a potential beneficiary of Airbus playing it safe.

Bald1983 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:02 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
I don't get why Airbus hasn't tried putting out contracts in the EU for euro - alternatives to components they get from the US. Not just because of Iran, but also because of the uncertainty unfolding in global relations.

That would be, indeed, a very stupid thing to do. First, you are advocating Airbus abandoning the largest economy in the World, for an impoverished nation that is going to have to fight for its own survival. I have to assume your hatred of the United States helps shape your view.

Absolutely not. I care deeply about the US (i'm american) but I also value our allies when we are going through turbulent times and am simply saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Uniformity is cheaper but diversification is safer in an unstable world. I'm not saying this because of Iran, rather they would be a potential beneficiary of Airbus playing it safe.

You do not sacrifice an extremely large market for an impoverished market just because you liked the so called deal. You are saying put all your eggs in one basket, the non-American basket. Finally it is American not american.

SomebodyInTLS · Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:57 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:

That would be, indeed, a very stupid thing to do. First, you are advocating Airbus abandoning the largest economy in the World, for an impoverished nation that is going to have to fight for its own survival. I have to assume your hatred of the United States helps shape your view.

Absolutely not. I care deeply about the US (i'm american) but I also value our allies when we are going through turbulent times and am simply saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Uniformity is cheaper but diversification is safer in an unstable world. I'm not saying this because of Iran, rather they would be a potential beneficiary of Airbus playing it safe.

You do not sacrifice an extremely large market for an impoverished market just because you liked the so called deal. You are saying put all your eggs in one basket, the non-American basket. Finally it is American not american.

How is advising to DIVERSIFY MANUFACTURING to avoid issues like the US unilaterally affecting trade putting your eggs in one basket? It's the very opposite! It's about the most direct application of that proverb that you can think of...

Take your nationalist glasses off for a second and note that he's talking about any similar situation with any country.

Jouhou · Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:56 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:

Absolutely not. I care deeply about the US (i'm american) but I also value our allies when we are going through turbulent times and am simply saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Uniformity is cheaper but diversification is safer in an unstable world. I'm not saying this because of Iran, rather they would be a potential beneficiary of Airbus playing it safe.

You do not sacrifice an extremely large market for an impoverished market just because you liked the so called deal. You are saying put all your eggs in one basket, the non-American basket. Finally it is American not american.

How is advising to DIVERSIFY MANUFACTURING to avoid issues like the US unilaterally affecting trade putting your eggs in one basket? It's the very opposite! It's about the most direct application of that proverb that you can think of...

Take your nationalist glasses off for a second and note that he's talking about any similar situation with any country.

this guy gets it. I'm an *American* (because you don't like how my tablet auto-completes) that doesn't like seeing us bully Europe. Part of my pride in my nation is in fact the close relationship we usually maintain with Europe. I don't want our politics causing enough damage where we might never be forgiven. I also don't see how using more European manufactured parts would sacrifice the American market anyways, nor do I see how that would even hurt the US with the sheer volume of a320s Airbus wants to churn out, diversification may make it more plausible to achieve their lofty production goals.

Virtual737 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:12 am

Jouhou wrote:
nor do I see how that would even hurt the US with the sheer volume of a320s

[joking] It's A320s please.[/joking]

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

jupiter2 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:46 am

Saying that Airbus could just source parts from just European nations, or any other country besides the U.S. may sound easy, but the reality would be tremendously difficult and expensive. You would have to assume that every contract with an American supplier would be fairly long term, so Airbus would have to either break the contract and pay it out, or see out the contract, which could be years, or hundreds, or thousands of frames. Airbus would need to find suppliers for the new parts, test them, intergrate them into the supply chain and get each and everyone of them certified onto each model produced. All time consuming, expensive exercises.

Then of course there are the engines. Do they axe P/W and CFM because they are American, or have heavy American content and hope that Rolls Royce or another European engine manufacturer can magically develop and produce suitable engines in a fraction of normal time frames ?

The ugly reality for Airbus is that these things are just not worth contemplating for any existing Airbus product and certainly not worth risking a huge amount of their business for what is a realtively small order.

Moving forward Airbus can look to reduce American content for future aircraft developments, but even then it wouldn't be easy, at best they could reduce the content, total elimination would probably be next to impossible. Then of course there is Brexit and the challenges that will cause them, with the potential of having to invest in new wing manufacturing facilities if the current negotiations can't find a suitable resolution. Could be a tough decade for Airbus moving forward, thankfully they have a deep order back log to ease their way through some challenges coming up.

SomebodyInTLS · Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:26 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Saying that Airbus could just source parts from just European nations, or any other country besides the U.S. may sound easy, but the reality would be tremendously difficult and expensive.

With this and Brexit, I would be not at all surprised if Airbus is now looking to diversify suppliers to reduce reliance on single-source parts. I think it is now interesting to find geographical / corporate alternatives for as much as they can - and with final assembly now being more widespread it might also be more efficient to source parts local to the FALs...

jupiter2 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:56 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Saying that Airbus could just source parts from just European nations, or any other country besides the U.S. may sound easy, but the reality would be tremendously difficult and expensive.

With this and Brexit, I would be not at all surprised if Airbus is now looking to diversify suppliers to reduce reliance on single-source parts. I think it is now interesting to find geographical / corporate alternatives for as much as they can - and with final assembly now being more widespread it might also be more efficient to source parts local to the FALs...

Diversfying your supply base is fine, as long as they can all meet the required standards all the time. Less technical parts you would have to assume shouldn't be a problem, it's the high tech parts that would be harder to find multiple high standard suppliers across various locations. It would also require each supplier to have suficient orders to make their investments worthwhile as well. It could mean cost discrepancies across different assembly sites if the "local" suppliers costs are much higher for individual parts, some of that cost could be made up with reduced shipping costs, but all together, it could overly complicate supply chains and have adverse effects on production costs.

It's tricky and an ever evolving problem for both major producers, not helped by offsets that maybe included in order contracts as well, just to further complicate matters.

Bald1983 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:30 pm

Jouhou wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:

You do not sacrifice an extremely large market for an impoverished market just because you liked the so called deal. You are saying put all your eggs in one basket, the non-American basket. Finally it is American not american.

How is advising to DIVERSIFY MANUFACTURING to avoid issues like the US unilaterally affecting trade putting your eggs in one basket? It's the very opposite! It's about the most direct application of that proverb that you can think of...

Take your nationalist glasses off for a second and note that he's talking about any similar situation with any country.

this guy gets it. I'm an *American* (because you don't like how my tablet auto-completes) that doesn't like seeing us bully Europe. Part of my pride in my nation is in fact the close relationship we usually maintain with Europe. I don't want our politics causing enough damage where we might never be forgiven. I also don't see how using more European manufactured parts would sacrifice the American market anyways, nor do I see how that would even hurt the US with the sheer volume of a320s Airbus wants to churn out, diversification may make it more plausible to achieve their lofty production goals.

Actually, you people do not get it. Airbus will not be able to put of their eggs in an American basket and an Iranian basket. The United States exited the so called deal. Airbus will have to choose. What you advocate is a result where Airbus gives up on the American market. Europe is not being bullied. We never should have entered into that farce of a deal in the first place and Europe is putting its short sighted economic interests over its long term interests. Airbus has a choice. They can rid themselves of the American market and keep the Iranian market or they can choose to comply with USA sanctions on Iran. As far as concern about our politics causing us never to be forgiven, that is sickening. Respect is the currency in international relations, something that not many years ago, we lacked both with friend and foe. AS I said, Airbus has a choice to make. My bet, they eschew Iran and stay with a real market.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net