So how did NG/Airbus get the contract is EVERYBODY knows they bootleg chit off of Boeing? Be creative, make your own chit!

Folks wonder why some planes fail to work, especially military planes...

It's gettin' political! John McCain might get a question or two about this as the election approaches.
Words of warning from D.C.: Expect "firestorm of criticism"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...olitics01.html

Wow!!! :eek:

Wow!!!

Well, the essential difference here seems to be that Airbus just chose a bigger plane as its base. You'd think the Air Force would have concerns other than just size...how stereotypically American. A guy from the Pentagon is on record as saying that the Airbus option supposedly delivers better reliability, too, but I fail to see how they could possibly know that when this plane (with its systems) has never even been built before!

So, I guess the the US government won't get tax dollars from the US part of this consortium.

Here's a link to a story about the deal:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...orce-deal.aspx

A couple questions occur to me.

Might it be that Boeing really did have an inferior bid?

Or a much more expensive bid? Anybody seen a comparison?

If so, wouldn't Congress and the GAO be all over the Air Force for choosing Boeings bid?

Does Boeing not outsource parts, etc. outside the country?

Won't the loss of new jobs in Seattle be a gain for Mobile? They're both in the US, right? My wife's family has included numerous Boeing employees and engineers in both Seattle and Huntsville, AL, but this, unfortunately, is business, not Washington vs. Alabama.

Will the fabrication of this new plant in the South bring more aircraft building and sales into the overall US economy in the long run with more capacity to build and assemble airframes?

Finally, if the Airbus design is technically superior and more efficient shouldn't it win? Obviously, the Air Force thinks so.

As for the car analogy you take to task, the point simply is that buying something simply because it is allegedly a US product doesn't really hold water anymore in this day of globalsim. The computer you're reading this on may well have been assembled here, but the parts that made it probably weren't.

One - the A330 MRTT airframe which the KC-45 basically is has been selected by the UK, Australians, USA, Saudis, United Arab Emirates so far so I think it's safe to say that the airframe has advantages to off-set the slightly smaller size (aside from cost).

Reliability and durability being the main one (at least from talking to the airline pilots): airframe and systems like engines and such - more reliable, easier access for repairs and higher stress tolerances for loads thanks to carbon fiber re-enforcement that is a standard introduced into Airbus frames since the mid-80s.

I don't know a lot about it, but at some point if we're bidding out government contracts, it's based on being a competitive process. If Boeing is the only US company in the running, it makes sense that international bids would be considered, or the military is just at the mercy of whatever Boeing wants to build and charge, right?

Going domestic is absolutely worth something, but if you only have one viable domestic bidder, you've got a problem.

Scenario #1, Boeing gets the contract- "More no-bid contracts by Bush and his gang to fatten the pockets of political allies."

Scenario #2, Boeing doesn't get the contract- "The Pentagon is once again selling out America."

Tough to win in the "court of public opinion" under either, isn't it?

i think people should suffer for their own negligence and if they are ignorant then maybe they learned something and can do a better job next time

Awarding Govt Contracts has gotten so involved they announced recently they are giving it it's own command and will be headed by a 2 star general. It's no secret that in the past the contracts were written with certain contractors in mind and nobody else could possibly win the bids. They are trying to get away from that and make it more fair.

Not only in the military. I've done it myself on a much smaller scale.

Which doesn't make it right.

From what I read in the media, NG/Airbus, had a better plane in many ways and cheaper.

Do I like it as Boeing has a big plant in Kansas, no. One of our Senators was livid and is I think he is the armed forces committee chairman.

Boeing did not lose the jobs they planned to add as there were not there to beging with (3,800).

The world is a Global economy today, we have to admit it. American Flag Carriers are buying Airbus products and I wonder why?

If our product is better, we should win the prize of the contract. If not, well then what?

Congress IS calling on Gates and Air Force leadership to explain to them why they chose NG over Boeing for the new KC-X refuelers, so they seem to be as concerned as well over Boeing losing out. Boeing pretty much had this no-bid contract in the bag until people started crying foul over the billion dollar DoD no-bid contracts. From what the Air Force tells me,(I unfortunatly have a direct line) they wanted something that had more versatility for the new tanker and what Boeing offered as a update to the KC-135 wasn't as good as NG's design.

While part of me says "buy USA", another part says get the best product you can, that does the mission the best, at the best price.
From what I have seen and read, that would seem to be NG rather than Boeing.

As for the prior Boeing deal, remember that not only did people go to jail, one person died; they committed suicide.

The words from Congress bring back an action by Trent Lott a few years ago; he had a ship built for the Navy just to get jobs for his area. The Navy did not ask for the ship nor did the bill provide for a crew.