Bonjour à tous
Dans la série le KC-X et l'OMC je vous livre, sans arrière pensée, la petite dernière.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/KCX111909.xml&headline=Lawmakers Call For Airbus Penalty On KC-X&channel=defense
16 élus démocrates et républicains prennent position pour intégrer un moyen de pénaliser l'offre de NG compte tenu du rapport préliminaire sur les financements des airbus jusqu' à l'A380.
Cette démarche se base sur le rapport préliminaire, qui n'a donc aucun valeur juridique, et les 10% de chomage actuels aux USA (au passage ils vivent une reprise économique sans reprise du marché du travail pour le moment).
L'idée est d'appliquer par le calcul une surtaxe sur le prix soumis par NG (ici on parle de 5 million par avion...).
Je me risque à une commentaire : ridicule... autant interdire carrement à NG de soumettre une offre avec Airbus...
Comme on a pu le lire déjà ici , et comme je le pense, on touche là la limite d'un système où seuls deux acteurs restent crédibles. Dans le cas du KC-X, ce n'est pas un appel d'offre pour une saine concurrence, mais bien plutôt une foire d'empoigne pour biaiser les critères de jugement et avoir le marché sans trop se saigner.
J'accepte volontiers que ma position soit discutable, mais ce n'est que du DOP...
Si on regarde à la cantonnade ceux qui auraient pu intervenir dans cet AO on peut noter
Boeing -> 767
Airbus -> A330
Iliushin -> IL96
En "refurbished" qui peuvent être très compétitifs compte tenu des taux d'utilisations réduits des tankers et d'un prix d'acquisition canon, on, peut rajouter
Les DC10, MD11, Tristar (why not), A310 (l'A310 MRTT vaut facilement un KC135) et des A340.
L'appel d'offre porte sur 179 avions... ce un peu ça le hic
Et c'est ça qui fait pousser les dents à Boeing et NG.
Lawmakers Call For Airbus Penalty On KC-X
Nov 19, 2009
By Amy Butler
Sixteen lawmakers — both Democrats and Republicans — are calling on the Defense Dept. to develop a mechanism to penalize a Northrop Grumman/EADS proposal to replace KC-135 refuelers for the U.S. Air Force.
The legislators take issue with the process laid out in the Air Force’s September draft request for proposals for the KC-X competition. Northrop Grumman/EADS is planning to propose an Airbus A330-based design with Boeing likely to offer a 767 or, possibly, a 777. At issue is the Air Force’s proposal not to consider the impact of illegal government aid on the cost of the Airbus-based model. The World Trade Organization issued a preliminary ruling in September that said Airbus did benefit from unfair subsidies used to develop its commercial product line. A final ruling from the WTO is expected next year, although final rulings rarely deviate from the findings of a preliminary ruling.
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) says there are several ways to account for the illegal subsidies in the competition. He advocates for using the countervailing duty process, which would be used by the Commerce Dept. to calculate a per unit penalty for A330s based on the actual size of the illegal subsidy. This amount, up to $5 million per unit according to Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), would then be added by the Air Force to the proposed price of the Northrop Grumman/EADS offering, Inslee says.
“With 10 percent unemployment, this is not a moment for one agency in the federal government [the U.S. Trade Representative] to prosecute and then have another agency, the U.S. Air Force, to be totally oblivious of that prosecution,” Inslee says.
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who hosted the press conference on Capitol Hill Nov. 18, echoed that sentiment. “Defense procurement must be consistent with our trade policies,” he says.
This, however, is a challenge. The U.S. government encouraged a massive consolidation in the defense industry in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War; Boeing is the sole remaining commercial widebody manufacturer in the United States. At the time, government officials found they would allow for competition from the only other source: Airbus. Now, however, that policy is in question because of the subsidy spat.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) says that if the defense procurement practices continue to be inconsistent with U.S. trade policy initiatives, the government should discontinue its participation in WTO cases. “If we are not going to use their judgments and we are not going to apply it then we may as well withdraw from the whole organization,” Tiahrt says. “It is this time when we have so many unemployed that we need to be fighting for American workers.”
Several other lawmakers — including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sen. Maria Cantwell, (D-Wash.), Sen. Christopher Bond (D-Mo.), Dicks, Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) — also argued that the exclusion of the WTO ruling from the KC-X source-selection method unfairly penalizes American workers, who they say would contribute to building a Boeing tanker.
Offerings from both competitors rely on work content and materials sourcing from foreign countries.
Northrop Grumman issued a statement supporting the Pentagon’s position against accounting for WTO rulings in the KC-X source selection process. “To preemptively force a trade dispute into the tanker procurement process before all outstanding complaints have been fully resolved is a violation of international agreements as well as fundamental WTO rules.” Northrop officials did not attend the press conference, saying it was a “nonevent.”
A case before the WTO to explore claims by the European Union that Boeing also received illegal subsidies through Defense Dept. research contracts hasn’t yet been ruled upon.
Boeing officials say in a statement that they appreciate support from the lawmakers. “We’ve long held the position that government subsidies to Airbus are market-distorting and a violation of WTO rules.” Boeing officials attended the press event, but did not publicly speak.
Though the Pentagon proposed a plan to issue the final RFP by the end of this month, it is widely thought it will slip into December at least to address this issue as well as questions about the source selection methodology raised by both companies and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.