U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Peppy--

You know our Senators and Representatives are partly to blame here... Apparently there is an appeal process...

I don't like how the Boeing folks are suffering for ignorance and negligence.

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

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Um, excuse me, I'm not the U.S. military! This cannot be compared to a family sedan or mini-van. I don't appreciate that our billions of tax dollars are being given to a foreign government to produce something that could have been done VERY well here.

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

The way I hear it Boeing has outsourced thousands of jobs into China now and much of this project was not to be built in the U.S. anyway. Now it will be built in Mobile, AL with American workers. It's a good thing for Alabama's economy.

I don't know where you heard that, but your source is WRONG. Airbus is the one opening manufacturing facilities in China! To my knowledge, Boeing assembles ALL of its planes here in the U.S., and I know this because I've walked through the factories many times and seen the assembly lines. The aircraft Boeing was going to use for this project has been manufactured in Everett, Wash. for decades, and the planes under this contract would be built there, on that production line. Boeing would have hired 9,000 additional people to add to the production line of that particular plane.

And as far as I've heard, this plane will not be built in the U.S. now. The planes are made by Airbus in FRANCE, and I've heard they will just be flown to Alabama for configuration as needed.

Boeing has a lot of pride in its U.S. manufacturing force. The 787 (the Dreamliner) is the first of its commercial jets to have some parts made overseas (in addition to working with other U.S. partners). Even then, Boeing is flying those pieces to its Everett plant to put it all together along with the parts created in Everett. One of the reasons why it made the decision to have a few pieces of that aircraft made overseas was because many of Boeing's strongest supporters are international airlines! It was a smart business decision and a way of holding on to customers who now have their own source of pride in that aircraft.

When it comes to matters of U.S. defense, yes, I want the Pentagon to choose an American manufacturer, especially one that has a reputation for a quality product AND a history of providing such aircraft to the military. Instead, we're going to give $40-$100 BILLION to a European government-subsidized competitor. Our government essentially just gave as much as $100 BILLION to European governments. Also, supposedly each one of the Boeing tankers in this contract would have cost $35 MILLION less than the Airbus model, which meant a savings of more than $6 billion...or, 50 additional tankers. When you consider the value of the US dollar vs the Euro, the cost difference will amount to even more.

ETA: Articles in papers today are breaking the employment count down to this: N-G will add about 1,500 jobs to its Mobile, Ala. plant, and about 6,000 positions will be created at EADS/Airbus facilities in Europe (primarily France). Compared to the 9,000 jobs Boeing would have added to its plants in the U.S., mainly Everett, Wash.

[Army Wife'79]

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

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.

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

Which doesn't make it right.

[Tom Earp]

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?

[PiKA2001]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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 unfortunately 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.