U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[RACooper]

You'd rather they fly an American plane even if it means decreased operational ability? Talk about "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RACooper

You'd rather they fly an American plane even if it means decreased operational ability? Talk about "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

Well, Europeans do have a nasty habit of getting into wars with each other. Let's hope that European peacetime continues throughout the contract. From a strategic standpoint, anytime a country depends on another country for such things, it's asking for trouble.

[John]

It seems that many Boeing people are quite upset with John McCain about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._force_tankers

From the article:

"Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it."

Considering the fragile state of the U.S. economy, I'm very surprised at things like this.

Originally Posted by Kevin

From a strategic standpoint, anytime a country depends on another country for such things, it's asking for trouble.

Considering the size of the contract, I wonder if it would be feasible for the U.S. to require EADS/Northrop to open facilities within the U.S. and manufacture those planes here using U.S. workers. That would solve a few of the issues such as keeping the money within the U.S. economy as well as negating any dependence on a foreign country for these things.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by John

It seems that many Boeing people are quite upset with John McCain about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._force_tankers

From the article:


Considering the fragile state of the U.S. economy, I'm very surprised at things like this.



Considering the size of the contract, I wonder if it would be feasible for the U.S. to require EADS/Northrop to open facilities within the U.S. and manufacture those planes here using U.S. workers. That would solve a few of the issues such as keeping the money within the U.S. economy as well as negating any dependence on a foreign country for these things.

Some of the EADS parts are to be producted in US John.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Some of the EADS parts are to be producted in US John.

These are Airbus planes. Airbus builds its planes in France. However, since NG has some components they need to put in these planes, Airbus will build out its plane sections in France, then fly the pieces to Alabama to have them put together. But make no mistake the majority of the work will be done in France, which is the reason why only reportedly 1,500 direct jobs will be created in Alabama.

I still fail to see how this is a good deal for the U.S. taxpayers. These are American tax dollars that could have been spent here in the U.S., not only in the way of jobs, but by the indirect spending/contributions to the economy as a result of those jobs...service industry, housing, AND the government would get some of that tax money back! At least that money would have stayed in this country. If this deal had gone to Boeing, the company would have created 9,000 direct jobs in this country (in Wash., Kansas, Texas, and Conn.) because all of the work would have been done here. Instead, France will get more than 6,000 new jobs and Alabama will get a paltry 1,500.

It still irks me that the Air Force requested a plane the size of the 767 (and didn't want the bigger 777) in the formal RFP, then rejected it because they changed their mind and decided it was too small. Now it sounds like the military will have to change out some of its equipment (at high cost) and policies in order to accommodate the plane that was so heavy and wide that it didn't even meet the requirements of the formal RFP.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

These are Airbus planes. Airbus builds its planes in France. However, since NG has some components they need to put in these planes, Airbus will build out its plane sections in France, then fly the pieces to Alabama to have them put together. But make no mistake the majority of the work will be done in France, which is the reason why only reportedly 1,500 direct jobs will be created in Alabama.

I still fail to see how this is a good deal for the U.S. taxpayers. These are American tax dollars that could have been spent here in the U.S., not only in the way of jobs, but by the indirect spending/contributions to the economy as a result of those jobs...service industry, housing, AND the government would get some of that tax money back! At least that money would have stayed in this country. If this deal had gone to Boeing, the company would have created 9,000 direct jobs in this country (in Wash., Kansas, Texas, and Conn.) because all of the work would have been done here. Instead, France will get more than 6,000 new jobs and Alabama will get a paltry 1,500.

It still irks me that the Air Force requested a plane the size of the 767 (and didn't want the bigger 777) in the formal RFP, then rejected it because they changed their mind and decided it was too small. Now it sounds like the military will have to change out some of its equipment (at high cost) and policies in order to accommodate the plane that was so heavy and wide that it didn't even meet the requirements of the formal RFP.

Peppy, As you can see from my sig, I lived in Washington.
I have several friends who work for Boeing.
I understand and agree with all you just posted. I was just pointing out that "some" jobs were here in USA.

And yes, the whole deal "stinks". It could be looked at a 180 degree swing from the prior deal with Boeing. Just hope it, in the end, gets a less than purely political review.

[jon1856]

Boeing to File Protest on Lost Tanker Deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_business

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/b..._513928_1.html

Some interesting comments on why, perhaps, Boeing did not use the 777 rather than the 767.
Which could be the cause of the lose of contract.