Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??

[Pugs]

Airbus = better product at a lower price

Boeing has been price gouging the US Military for years now. This is a message they can't keep operating with impunity.

You can say that if you wish but I find "gouging" to be a fuzzy term. Boeing/MacAir put at least five years of their own R&D into the F/A-18G before the government came on board. I flew the sim for it in St Louis and provided input to the design team circa 95. I would expect them, as a company, to get something out of those invested R&D dollars in the final price of the product. These aren't being built by "the peoples aircraft factory #2."

The Military and the US Taxpayers all win here. I don't understand some of your arguments. The thing is going to be built in the US, with US citizens (presumably almost 3,000 in AL) getting good paying jobs. You think everything Boeing is built in the US? Think again...

The thing is going to undergo final integration in Alabama, all the assembly to make it flyable will happen in Europe and it will come to the US in some state "green". That's a looooong way from being built in the US.

I'm sure Boeing will do just fine without the EADS business on the 777, 737 and 787 versions but I still do not approve of a major buy like this being awarded to an overseas prime. We're going to have to live with this aircraft for 50 years. That's a lot of time to be subject to a foreign expertise and sub-system supply line.

 

[STLEngineer]

/sort of threadjack/

Wasn't the Harrier really built by BAE under the Boeing name? Isn't this the same thing as what NG/AB are doing now?

McDonnell-Douglas did a lot of fixing/modifying of other aircrafts designs and selling them, be it the F-18, Goshawk or Harrier. That's where they made a lot of their money in the late 70s through the 90s.

When Boeing bought MDC, they absorbed their products, but claiming that Boeing did these things is a stretch.

 

[HeyJoe]

Boeing still has a chance though, the "Buy American law" may help them out.

Doesn't apply here. That's why NGC had lead thereby satisfying that stricture. Hence Lockheed being lead on Presidential Helo and Boeing being the prime on the AV-8B Harrier and the T-45 Goshawk.

 

[A4sForever]

....the good hardworking American's at Boeing need to look squarely at management for pissing this away......

Agree eek, and Boeing management has been in the toilet (opinion) ever since the two EMT's "merged" after the Boeing buy-out of McDonnell-Douglas.

That marriage was NOT made in heaven and was NOT a plus to the surviving company, in my opinion.

 

[FSSF]

We're going to have to live with this aircraft for 50 years. That's a lot of time to be subject to a foreign expertise and sub-system supply line.

Excellent point. Getting away from the pure cost/schedule/performance perspective there is a very real security issue here. The question I guess becomes Is that security (national or otherwise) worth the extra bucks and an also ran product. What extra costs were/ should have been added to the AB airframe to account for the oversight probably needed to make sure these Aircraft come to us clean and worry free from some of the sub contractors.

 

[raptor10]

Excellent point. Getting away from the pure cost/schedule/performance perspective there is a very real security issue here. The question I guess becomes Is that security (national or otherwise) worth the extra bucks and an also ran product. What extra costs were/ should have been added to the AB airframe to account for the oversight probably needed to make sure these Aircraft come to us clean and worry free from some of the sub contractors.

Especially if Russia wants to increase it's stock in EADS...

 

[rolo12]

Plus the fact that they need to build the factory in Mobile... This will take at lest a year or two. Boeing already has an airframe and the experience in building tankers. The AF claimed that one reason that they went with EADS is that they will have a larger capacity to carry payload/people...well I'm sure the 777 or even the 787 might do close to the same job and save $$$ at the same time...plus thousands of American jobs to boot.

 

[FSSF]

You'll have to re iterate the details, but from my perspective if Boeing didn't compete those models, then again it was their fault. Its not the AF's job to look past the product being presented at products that could be presented. It Boeing's job to put forward the best product that meets the requirements set forth.

 

[hscs]

Flash -- Pelosi has been quoted in the news as saying that the contract would have not gone "overseas" had McCain not gotten involved. Total smearfest that plays to the ignorant union voter.

 

[e6bflyer]

Plus the fact that they need to build the factory in Mobile... This will take at lest a year or two. Boeing already has an airframe and the experience in building tankers. The AF claimed that one reason that they went with EADS is that they will have a larger capacity to carry payload/people...well I'm sure the 777 or even the 787 might do close to the same job and save $$$ at the same time...plus thousands of American jobs to boot.

You are sure? For the same cost as the EADS version? You (and everyone else who is wanking about Boeing losing the contract) have nothing concrete to offer (ie - some kind of findings from the SSB), just a bunch of subjective opinions.
Boeing lost. They lost with JSF because what they offered sucked in comparison with the competition. Now they lost the tanker deal because of the same reason. The difference is we are now buying from a European company. I will rehash what was said earlier: I would much rather our tanker crews fly the best weapons system available for the price, no matter where it comes from.
I own two Japanese cars (built in the USA by the way) because they are highly superior to anything that the big 3 have to offer. I am not going to handicap myself just because I want to buy American. I would much rather send the message to the American auto producers that they need to offer a better product in order to compete (I do believe that harsh reality is currently playing itself out in Detroit).
As for the "lost jobs", are those guys going to go home and collect unemployment checks until the next tanker deal comes along? No, they are going to go out and find a job somewhere else in the workforce (maybe in Mobile).

 

[Flash]

Plus the fact that they need to build the factory in Mobile... This will take at lest a year or two. Boeing already has an airframe and the experience in building tankers. The AF claimed that one reason that they went with EADS is that they will have a larger capacity to carry payload/people...well I'm sure the 777 or even the 787 might do close to the same job and save $$$ at the same time...plus thousands of American jobs to boot.

The factory would only be used for final assembly, so building it is not going to be too hard. And the simple fact is that Boeing proposed a version that had never been built and was likely going to take longer to get the the USAF than the EADS proposal.

As for the 777 or the 787 (which still has not flown yet), what FSSF said.

Flash -- Pelosi has been quoted in the news as saying that the contract would have not gone "overseas" had McCain not gotten involved. Total smearfest that plays to the ignorant union voter.

Haven't seen anything on that.

 

[Pugs]

Haven't seen anything on that.

OK, here you go; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/beab3936-ebe8-11dc-9493-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


Now this does seem like a typical Pelosi finger pointing and I'll admit that the first leasing deal with Boeing certainly seems like it was a bad deal for the tax payers evidence backed up by the prison sentences meted out. McCain deserves credit for stepping in and if the EADS competition was biased towards Airbus by previous conduct then it's a separate issue.

 

[Flash]

Full article at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/beab3936-ebe8-11dc-9493-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Thanks.

 

[milky-f18]

/sort of threadjack/

Wasn't the Harrier really built by BAE under the Boeing name? Isn't this the same thing as what NG/AB are doing now?

Not to mention the horrible product that the Goshawk is now started as a BAE product.

 

[mmx1]

Plus the fact that they need to build the factory in Mobile... This will take at lest a year or two. Boeing already has an airframe and the experience in building tankers. The AF claimed that one reason that they went with EADS is that they will have a larger capacity to carry payload/people...well I'm sure the 777 or even the 787 might do close to the same job and save $$$ at the same time...plus thousands of American jobs to boot.

The 767 production line is about to close. On the other hand, Boeing's still busy cranking out 777's, and the 787 hasn't even started production; we'd have to take a number behind everyone else who's pre-ordered or compete with them for additional production capacity. Much as I think the idea of a KC-777 or KC-787 would be awesome, I wouldn't want to pay for it.