Quote:
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.
Hybrid Mode
