RE: Tanker contract awarded to Boeing......

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad to see the troops will soon be getting this needed asset. The 767 should make a good and reliable platform for them.
 
Good news for a change!

A friend of mine turns wrenches for a major airline and said that the Airbus fleet doesn't hold up as well as the Boeing fleet does.
 
Uggghhhh, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a professional tanker clown intimately familiar with the current capabilities and future needs, I was hoping the EADS/Airbus solution would prevail. But alas union jobs (which actually won't occur in the long run) taking priority over defense capabilities wins again, politics as usual.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
--Dan<o:p></o:p>
 
As much as we dislike "politics", we have to become reconciled to their permeating everything. Regardless of the merits of the two proposals -- which I am sure cannot be all that different -- I for one am glad that Boeing got the win because in addition to jobs (yes, I know EADS was going to do some offset work over here) the profits (oooh, it's that dirty word again!) stay here and will be used to develop future products. :salute:

- h52
 
Naismith said:
Good news, especially with regard to the jobs it will create within the U.S. How they could even seriously consider the Airbus tender amazed me.
Click to expand...

Both companies were claiming their projects would have created about 50,000 jobs, and given the stunt Boeing pulled the first time around with the leasing scandal, I'm amazed they were even allowed to bid on the contract again.

Regardless of who won the contract, it'll likely end up over budget and behind schedule, so I'm a bit dubious about the USAF claims that cost was the deciding factor.
 
azflyboy said:
Both companies were claiming their projects would have created about 50,000 jobs, and given the stunt Boeing pulled the first time around with the leasing scandal, I'm amazed they were even allowed to bid on the contract again.

Regardless of who won the contract, it'll likely end up over budget and behind schedule, so I'm a bit dubious about the USAF claims that cost was the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

Hey, hay, hay now. Were talking about Boeing not Lockheed. I give Boeing a 25% change of geting them done on time and budget. If it was Lockheed, I would give them a 99.9% chance of geting them done over budget and behind schedule.
 
HvyEng said:
Uggghhhh, <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a professional tanker clown intimately familiar with the current capabilities and future needs, I was hoping the EADS/Airbus solution would prevail. But alas union jobs (which actually won't occur in the long run) taking priority over defense capabilities wins again, politics as usual.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
--Dan<o:p></o:p>
Click to expand...

Glad to see someone agrees. The EADS/Airbus proposal was a much better solution that would have created just as many jobs as the Boeing one. Despite this institutionalised xenophobia seems to have taken hold as always.

Pork Barrel Politics through and through.
 
I looked up & posted the numbers in another thread and clearly the USAF is getting a lesser plane with the KC-767. Just a 2 engine KC-135 is all it is. It's tanker combo + cargo numbers are pretty pathetic compared to the A330MRTT & the latter is good bit closer in it's numbers to the KC-10A.

The right call was made the first time but Boeing cried wolf playing politics to get the losing plane a second and albeit very rigged chance. Under the original contract awarding to Northrop EADS, the jobs would have been in a location that not only could use those jobs, but also here in the US of A, not overseas. But again, it wasn't at Everette or Wichita so the greedy guts up at Boeing HQ & the Unions couldn't have that.

This was a Boeing victory(with inside help in Congress direct pipelined to the Pentagon), a victory for the losing design, and a major loss of would be capability to the Air Force. Mark my words, when we get down the road a few years, this horribly bad decision will rear it's ugly head in a multitude of ways. When it does, few of those behind it all will be visible. Given time, I suspect a major scandal will come of this too.
 
"its got nothing to do with how good your product is. Its who you know and how much money you can afford to spend on persuasion"

:monkies:
 
I went like this upon reading the headline for the first time:

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/


The MRTT would've needed less adaptive measures than the 767...but eh, the USAF should know what it's doing. Or not. We'll just sell the A330 to the rest of the world then instead the rest of the world *and* the US.


- Edit: I'd offer some A330MRTTs to Iran and North Korea and be like "If we had the USAF contract, we wouldn't have to do this!" :>


Also, the sales talks with Iran would be fun:

"Here, you can buy our MRTTs now."
- "Umm, okay. We'll take five."
"You'll get a kilogram of weapons grade plutonium with every dozen."
- "In that case...we'll buy two thousand!"
"A new nuclear research lab to boot if you buy two dozen A320s and leave Israel alone."
- "Deal!"

And the world would be a much better place...


The end.
 
Bjoern said:
I went like this upon reading the headline for the first time:

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/


The MRTT would've needed less adaptive measures than the 767...but eh, the USAF should know what it's doing. Or not. We'll just sell the A330 to the rest of the world then instead the rest of the world *and* the US.


- Edit: I'd offer some A330MRTTs to Iran and North Korea and be like "If we had the USAF contract, we wouldn't have to do this!" :>


Also, the sales talks with Iran would be fun:

"Here, you can buy our MRTTs now."
- "Umm, okay. We'll take five."
"You'll get a kilogram of weapons grade plutonium with every dozen."
- "In that case...we'll buy two thousand!"
"A new nuclear research lab to boot if you buy two dozen A320s and leave Israel alone."
- "Deal!"

And the world would be a much better place...


The end.
Click to expand...

I'm sure being the intelligent individual I know you to be you are not serious...but if I were you I would stop this now! When you consider the state of the world at present...this isn't funny Bjoern!
Ted
 
Bjoern said:
I went like this upon reading the headline for the first time:
The MRTT would've needed less adaptive measures than the 767...but eh, the USAF should know what it's doing. Or not. We'll just sell the A330 to the rest of the world then instead the rest of the world *and* the US.
- Edit: I'd offer some A330MRTTs to Iran and North Korea and be like "If we had the USAF contract, we wouldn't have to do this!" :>
Also, the sales talks with Iran would be fun:
"Here, you can buy our MRTTs now."
- "Umm, okay. We'll take five."
"You'll get a kilogram of weapons grade plutonium with every dozen."
- "In that case...we'll buy two thousand!"
"A new nuclear research lab to boot if you buy two dozen A320s and leave Israel alone."
- "Deal!"
And the world would be a much better place...
The end.
Click to expand...

How to get a thread locked plus an infraction all in one step!
:173go1::173go1::173go1:
 
ive been folloing this thing in the pages of air international magazine..and it was pretty clear that boeing woould get the contract or they would never stop filing protests and flinging accuasations of wrong doing..airbus/EADS had no chance...but what i find distrubing is that everyone think
s its so great that americans will get jobs now...eads was going to buld the planes in the USA soouth/southeast not france/UK..and most of the Boeing airplane will be built in Tiawan and shiped here for final assembly...but just a few american workers will assemble it.....so whats best for americans? the airbus /eads product....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top