9 ms·

Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

284 points by embedding-shape 5mo ago

zulux 5mo ago
Good? A bit of competition is good for everybody. Having one vendor for everything leads to many problems.
kevin_thibedeau 5mo ago
The USAF also selected the MRTT but corruption took care of that threat to Boeing.
- rassimmoc 5mo ago
  I am surprised that USAF selecting MRTT even got so far as to be made public. I would expect it would die in some draft document on someones office PC
  - throw1234567891 5mo ago
    It’s good for propaganda.
tcgv 5mo ago
> Several defence analysts point out that although the KC-46 is the standard tanker of the USAF, it has suffered technical problems and delays that have slowed its competitiveness abroad, to the benefit of the A330 MRTT, which has already been adopted by many NATO and non-NATO allies. In this sense, the Italian choice is seen more as an industrial victory for Airbus than as an American “political defeat”. The political factor surely played a role here, but this bit at the end of the article also sheds light on Boeing's decline, which predates the current US administration. While politics acted as a catalyst, Boeing was ultimately defeated by its own undoing.
- dylan604 5mo ago
  Having doors flying off one of your planes and engine failure causing part of the cowling to bust a window and sucking a passenger out of another is definitely not a bit of politics. Nevermind the bullshit 737Max nonsense. At this point, I'd imagine any Boeing orders left are only in place because Airbus can't keep up. Politics didn't need to come within 10 miles of this decision. It's just the free cherry on top.
  - Retric 5mo ago
    Incidents that are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. The airbus A320 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities, there’s just a vast number of flights daily so tiny risks add up. Companies buying new aircraft care far more about maintenance to fuel efficiency than a few rare incidents due to already corrected issues.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > The airbus A380 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities… What? The A380 has never had a single fatality or even injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_inci... > Incidents are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. Airbus (and Boeing) has a decade-long backlog. They absolutely do. https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airbus-and-boeing-report-march-2026-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries/ https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airb...
      - Retric 5mo ago
        Ops A320. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
    - harmmonica 5mo ago
      Can you shed a bit more light on this? I can't find any evidence that there are that many fatalities related to that plane, at least related to its operations in flight. Seems like there are few or if my quick look shows even zero fatalities related to it flying. You wrote "associated" but can you define what you mean by that? During manufacturing, maintenance and other non-flight-related incidents?
ungreased0675 5mo ago
Italy probably didn’t want to wait 12 years for delivery. Good choice.
- netsharc 5mo ago
  They probably also didn't want a President Vance, Rubio, Junior or Ivanka, to use the availability of parts and tech support as a way to ensure their compliance..
  - ungreased0675 5mo ago
    Italy is a big supplier for the F-35 and other major US programs, so that knife cuts both ways. I don’t think that was a consideration at all.
    - dboreham 5mo ago
      Definitely a consideration by all countries.
sschueller 5mo ago
Meanwhile Switzerland is being taken to the cleaners. F35s that had a fix cost in contract with Lockheed are no longer fixed cost because the US says so. Patriot systen permanently delayed and price going up and up. Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s...
- Quarrel 5mo ago
  > Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s... Which Switzerland then reluctantly agreed was allowed under the terms. As you say, totally being taken to the cleaners, and it is unclear how they escape in the short term. The more this happens though, the more deals like Italy's make senese, irrespective of the performance comparison of the two planes. If the US is going to be an unreliable partner, that will filter through in many many ways, and the US can hardly blame anyone but themselves (well, I'm sure some fingers will get pointed internally).
  - tokai 5mo ago
    I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.
    - SecretDreams 5mo ago
      They're very scared of their boss and the CEOs are short sighted by virtue of their compensation packages.
    - helsinkiandrew 5mo ago
      > I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder It doesn’t really matter if your product is better or cheaper, if the customer thinks that service and spare parts might possibly be withdrawn in the future for political (or whatever) reasons they won’t buy your product.
sltr 5mo ago
> The tanker deal is not just a competition won; it is a decision that shifts the balanc I didn't just stop reading at this line, I slammed the back button like releasing an emergency exit door.
jsrozner 5mo ago
[flagged]
- Maxion 5mo ago
  The text looks AI generated as well.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
shevy-java 5mo ago
As long as a mad king is ruling over the USA, no US product or service should taint european markets. I fail to see why money should go into companies that are hostile to europeans. Canadians already made that decision months ago (granted, due to the tight coupling of their own market to the USA, this is mega-difficult; most Canadians live on the southern area, aka close to the USA - realistically Canadians can only reduce dependencies, but will never be able to decouple completely, but they had those discussions before, in particular with regards to security. Why invest into a country that became hostile to other countries? Makes indeed no sense. The USA burned all bridges here.)
- dboreham 5mo ago
  Mad king gone + plausible reforms done that preclude another mad king. That's going to take a while.
- newtonianrules 5mo ago
  [dead]
ksec 5mo ago
This is a noob question but wondering if anyone here could answer. There are plenty of choices for Small and Medium size plane as well as private jet. Why are most commercial airline only buying Boeing and Airbus? And why others aren't making bigger planes to compete?
- lysace 5mo ago
  The Chinese government has spent 18 years and an unknown amount of funds trying to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac They have delivered 185 aircraft to domestic airlines. Maybe Africa is next? Note that they so far use engines from western companies - GE and Safran. In fact, the vast majority of their primary suppliers are from outside of China: https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinas-comac-aerospace-minor-leaguer https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinas-comac-a... I guess it takes a bit of a war chest to get into this business simply because it isn't very easy.
- iancmceachern 5mo ago
  There are really only 2 choices. There is a third, Embrarer. They have most of the market in small regional jets in some cases, but those are in reality very different than say a 777 or 787. These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers. In short Boeing, Airbus and it's suppliers are basically what is left of all the old big aerospace manufacturers.
  - tremon 5mo ago
    These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers This. The entire market has been allowed to be monopolized through mergers and buy-outs. Russia used to have their own aerospace industry (and that fleet was reliable enough to be allowed to fly in Europe) but then Russia happened.
    - joe_mamba 5mo ago
      >Russia used to have their own aerospace industry (and that fleet was reliable enough to be allowed to fly in Europe) but then Russia happened. It's absolutely irrelevant what Russia did or could have done here in this industry. Same with Chinese planes. If they ever manage to make a competitive passenger plane, it will not be allowed certification by US and European authorities purely for political reasons, the same way how their EVs are not allowed for sale in the US or how they aren't allowed to have ASML EUV machines. This isn't a fair game, never was. The decisions on purchase of aerospace units is 90% (inter-)national politics and only 10% meritocracy, since both Boeing and Airbus are massive defense players making advanced killing machines, and no country wants to directly or indirectly fund the defense industry of their geopolitical rivals. When a third country needs to chooses between Airbus or Boeing for their flag carrier fleet, they don't objectively compare the operational history and tech specs of Airbus vs Boeing and make the decision based on that, they just ask themselves "do I want to be in bed with EU-France or with Uncle Sam as my main ally and provider for the next 30+ years". Hence why most oil-rich middle eastern states chose Boeing as the US is their main defense provider anyway and don't want to anger them, especially when Donald Orange makes a visit to your state. That's just how politics works when you operate at that level. Handshakes, dinners and bribes. Always has.
tim333 5mo ago
There's probably going to be ongoing attempts to be less reliant on the US while Trump is going on about needing Greenland and the like. His last odd 'truth' about it was six hours ago https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116624046809952385 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1166240468099...
- FabHK 5mo ago
  "Truth Social is currently unavailable in your area" Pity, in Hong Kong I cannot read the wise words of the king.
  - wolvoleo 5mo ago
    You're not missing anything. It was just a dumb picture of Trump's face looming over an unsuspecting Greenlandic town. Ominous but nothing with any news value
  - onetokeoverthe 5mo ago
    [dead]
- hugh-avherald 5mo ago
  "Normally he was wont to be about twelve feet from nose to tail, but when he was very depressed, Trump's AI likeness could be anything up to eight hundred yards long."
gibber878 5mo ago
[flagged]
- Danox 5mo ago
  The world is moving on from America the damage being done by the worst administration in the history of the country just continues on. Everyday, a new low…
jmward01 5mo ago
The US stock market is a lag indicator. It is built on perception and whim but, ultimately, is forced to deal with reality. Stories like this don't shift the market, and economies, overnight but they are showing what should be decades of economic and political shift happening relatively in just a few years. In the end this isn't just a signal that Europe has lost faith in the current administration, it is pretty clear that happened a while ago, this is a sign that Europe and others have lost faith in future US administrations. Everyone is a looser here in the long run for many reasons. We really did have it all.
ricardobeat 5mo ago
> The tanker deal is not just a competition won; it is a decision that shifts the balance. Did they at least use European AI to edit this?
_DeadFred_ 5mo ago
Reminder that Airbus pays kickbacks for government contracts. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/airbus-agrees-pay-over-39-billion-global-penalties-resolve-foreign-bribery-and-itar-case https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/airbus-agrees-pay-ov... When I was in aerospace we lost a not insignificant amount of contracts to Europeans that we had won during the RFP/requirements/evaluation phase because we did not do kickbacks (where we demonstratable win the selection process, but that be told to do a kickback scheme then lose when we said no). The Euros also spread money other ways to make us less attractive. In the US we'd win RPFs/evaluation phase only to lose out in the end due to politics. Sadly aerospace isn't a game of merit. Seemed like Australia, China, Japan, central/southern Africa didn't play games and selected on merit in the contracts we went after.

zulux 5mo ago

Good? A bit of competition is good for everybody. Having one vendor for everything leads to many problems.

kevin_thibedeau 5mo ago

The USAF also selected the MRTT but corruption took care of that threat to Boeing.

rassimmoc 5mo ago
I am surprised that USAF selecting MRTT even got so far as to be made public. I would expect it would die in some draft document on someones office PC
- throw1234567891 5mo ago
  It’s good for propaganda.

tcgv 5mo ago

> Several defence analysts point out that although the KC-46 is the standard tanker of the USAF, it has suffered technical problems and delays that have slowed its competitiveness abroad, to the benefit of the A330 MRTT, which has already been adopted by many NATO and non-NATO allies. In this sense, the Italian choice is seen more as an industrial victory for Airbus than as an American “political defeat”. The political factor surely played a role here, but this bit at the end of the article also sheds light on Boeing's decline, which predates the current US administration. While politics acted as a catalyst, Boeing was ultimately defeated by its own undoing.

dylan604 5mo ago
Having doors flying off one of your planes and engine failure causing part of the cowling to bust a window and sucking a passenger out of another is definitely not a bit of politics. Nevermind the bullshit 737Max nonsense. At this point, I'd imagine any Boeing orders left are only in place because Airbus can't keep up. Politics didn't need to come within 10 miles of this decision. It's just the free cherry on top.
- Retric 5mo ago
  Incidents that are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. The airbus A320 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities, there’s just a vast number of flights daily so tiny risks add up. Companies buying new aircraft care far more about maintenance to fuel efficiency than a few rare incidents due to already corrected issues.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    > The airbus A380 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities… What? The A380 has never had a single fatality or even injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_inci... > Incidents are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. Airbus (and Boeing) has a decade-long backlog. They absolutely do. https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airbus-and-boeing-report-march-2026-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries/ https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airb...
    - Retric 5mo ago
      Ops A320. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
  - harmmonica 5mo ago
    Can you shed a bit more light on this? I can't find any evidence that there are that many fatalities related to that plane, at least related to its operations in flight. Seems like there are few or if my quick look shows even zero fatalities related to it flying. You wrote "associated" but can you define what you mean by that? During manufacturing, maintenance and other non-flight-related incidents?

ungreased0675 5mo ago

Italy probably didn’t want to wait 12 years for delivery. Good choice.

netsharc 5mo ago
They probably also didn't want a President Vance, Rubio, Junior or Ivanka, to use the availability of parts and tech support as a way to ensure their compliance..
- ungreased0675 5mo ago
  Italy is a big supplier for the F-35 and other major US programs, so that knife cuts both ways. I don’t think that was a consideration at all.
  - dboreham 5mo ago
    Definitely a consideration by all countries.

sschueller 5mo ago

Meanwhile Switzerland is being taken to the cleaners. F35s that had a fix cost in contract with Lockheed are no longer fixed cost because the US says so. Patriot systen permanently delayed and price going up and up. Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s...

Quarrel 5mo ago
> Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s... Which Switzerland then reluctantly agreed was allowed under the terms. As you say, totally being taken to the cleaners, and it is unclear how they escape in the short term. The more this happens though, the more deals like Italy's make senese, irrespective of the performance comparison of the two planes. If the US is going to be an unreliable partner, that will filter through in many many ways, and the US can hardly blame anyone but themselves (well, I'm sure some fingers will get pointed internally).
- tokai 5mo ago
  I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.
  - SecretDreams 5mo ago
    They're very scared of their boss and the CEOs are short sighted by virtue of their compensation packages.
  - helsinkiandrew 5mo ago
    > I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder It doesn’t really matter if your product is better or cheaper, if the customer thinks that service and spare parts might possibly be withdrawn in the future for political (or whatever) reasons they won’t buy your product.

sltr 5mo ago

> The tanker deal is not just a competition won; it is a decision that shifts the balanc I didn't just stop reading at this line, I slammed the back button like releasing an emergency exit door.

jsrozner 5mo ago

[flagged]

Maxion 5mo ago
The text looks AI generated as well.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

shevy-java 5mo ago

As long as a mad king is ruling over the USA, no US product or service should taint european markets. I fail to see why money should go into companies that are hostile to europeans. Canadians already made that decision months ago (granted, due to the tight coupling of their own market to the USA, this is mega-difficult; most Canadians live on the southern area, aka close to the USA - realistically Canadians can only reduce dependencies, but will never be able to decouple completely, but they had those discussions before, in particular with regards to security. Why invest into a country that became hostile to other countries? Makes indeed no sense. The USA burned all bridges here.)

dboreham 5mo ago
Mad king gone + plausible reforms done that preclude another mad king. That's going to take a while.
newtonianrules 5mo ago
[dead]

ksec 5mo ago

This is a noob question but wondering if anyone here could answer. There are plenty of choices for Small and Medium size plane as well as private jet. Why are most commercial airline only buying Boeing and Airbus? And why others aren't making bigger planes to compete?

lysace 5mo ago
The Chinese government has spent 18 years and an unknown amount of funds trying to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac They have delivered 185 aircraft to domestic airlines. Maybe Africa is next? Note that they so far use engines from western companies - GE and Safran. In fact, the vast majority of their primary suppliers are from outside of China: https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinas-comac-aerospace-minor-leaguer https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinas-comac-a... I guess it takes a bit of a war chest to get into this business simply because it isn't very easy.
iancmceachern 5mo ago
There are really only 2 choices. There is a third, Embrarer. They have most of the market in small regional jets in some cases, but those are in reality very different than say a 777 or 787. These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers. In short Boeing, Airbus and it's suppliers are basically what is left of all the old big aerospace manufacturers.
- tremon 5mo ago
  These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers This. The entire market has been allowed to be monopolized through mergers and buy-outs. Russia used to have their own aerospace industry (and that fleet was reliable enough to be allowed to fly in Europe) but then Russia happened.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    >Russia used to have their own aerospace industry (and that fleet was reliable enough to be allowed to fly in Europe) but then Russia happened. It's absolutely irrelevant what Russia did or could have done here in this industry. Same with Chinese planes. If they ever manage to make a competitive passenger plane, it will not be allowed certification by US and European authorities purely for political reasons, the same way how their EVs are not allowed for sale in the US or how they aren't allowed to have ASML EUV machines. This isn't a fair game, never was. The decisions on purchase of aerospace units is 90% (inter-)national politics and only 10% meritocracy, since both Boeing and Airbus are massive defense players making advanced killing machines, and no country wants to directly or indirectly fund the defense industry of their geopolitical rivals. When a third country needs to chooses between Airbus or Boeing for their flag carrier fleet, they don't objectively compare the operational history and tech specs of Airbus vs Boeing and make the decision based on that, they just ask themselves "do I want to be in bed with EU-France or with Uncle Sam as my main ally and provider for the next 30+ years". Hence why most oil-rich middle eastern states chose Boeing as the US is their main defense provider anyway and don't want to anger them, especially when Donald Orange makes a visit to your state. That's just how politics works when you operate at that level. Handshakes, dinners and bribes. Always has.

tim333 5mo ago

There's probably going to be ongoing attempts to be less reliant on the US while Trump is going on about needing Greenland and the like. His last odd 'truth' about it was six hours ago https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116624046809952385 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1166240468099...

FabHK 5mo ago
"Truth Social is currently unavailable in your area" Pity, in Hong Kong I cannot read the wise words of the king.
- wolvoleo 5mo ago
  You're not missing anything. It was just a dumb picture of Trump's face looming over an unsuspecting Greenlandic town. Ominous but nothing with any news value
- onetokeoverthe 5mo ago
  [dead]
hugh-avherald 5mo ago
"Normally he was wont to be about twelve feet from nose to tail, but when he was very depressed, Trump's AI likeness could be anything up to eight hundred yards long."

gibber878 5mo ago

[flagged]

Danox 5mo ago
The world is moving on from America the damage being done by the worst administration in the history of the country just continues on. Everyday, a new low…

jmward01 5mo ago

The US stock market is a lag indicator. It is built on perception and whim but, ultimately, is forced to deal with reality. Stories like this don't shift the market, and economies, overnight but they are showing what should be decades of economic and political shift happening relatively in just a few years. In the end this isn't just a signal that Europe has lost faith in the current administration, it is pretty clear that happened a while ago, this is a sign that Europe and others have lost faith in future US administrations. Everyone is a looser here in the long run for many reasons. We really did have it all.

ricardobeat 5mo ago

> The tanker deal is not just a competition won; it is a decision that shifts the balance. Did they at least use European AI to edit this?

_DeadFred_ 5mo ago

Reminder that Airbus pays kickbacks for government contracts. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/airbus-agrees-pay-over-39-billion-global-penalties-resolve-foreign-bribery-and-itar-case https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/airbus-agrees-pay-ov... When I was in aerospace we lost a not insignificant amount of contracts to Europeans that we had won during the RFP/requirements/evaluation phase because we did not do kickbacks (where we demonstratable win the selection process, but that be told to do a kickback scheme then lose when we said no). The Euros also spread money other ways to make us less attractive. In the US we'd win RPFs/evaluation phase only to lose out in the end due to politics. Sadly aerospace isn't a game of merit. Seemed like Australia, China, Japan, central/southern Africa didn't play games and selected on merit in the contracts we went after.