Posted on 05/27/2008 7:50:13 PM PDT by blue state conservative
Loren Thompson, the well-regarded defense analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank, has taken heat from Boeing backers over his reports about the Air Force tanker decision.
But in his latest report, Thompson echoes many of Boeing's concerns about the decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
Good. It should go to Boeing.
Something ain’t kosher.
I agree. McCain running interference for Airbus wasn’t too Kosher.
It do sound fishy, Andy.
yea, screw the procurement process. Let’s just award every contract based on how many friends they have in congress.
Read the article - same old, same old. If this is all Boeing has got, it’s nada.
nothing like having the home town paper highlight anybody who agrees with their side. I’m sure it’s a carefully balanaced article.
From what I’ve read about this deal generally leaves me with the impression it was some Political manuever that awarded the contract to Northrop-Eads.
Personally I’ve no involvement other than being an American citizen who would prefer 100% American production of any new American military equipment.
There has been so much reported about corruption within the EADS organization as well. I don’t think it is acceptable to be associated with an organization with that sort of track record.
Seems having McCain and his airbus lobbying buddies paid off handsomely.
That's not Boeing
There has been so much reported about corruption within the EADS organization as well. I don’t think it is acceptable to be associated with an organization with that sort of track record.
That's Boeing
I wonder when the last time the Seattle-PI was in favor of a weapon that wasn’t built by Boeing.
Considering this guy was cheerleading the original decison, that makes it newsworthy.
Did McCain learn French while in Vietnam??
No he learned lobbying 101 in DC though
Why ask for another third party? They had one last time that Northrop - EADS won.
Boeing has already lined every politicians pocket. Why not a few more?
I don’t care about your jobs in Washington. You guys didn’t care when all the jobs were being lost in the south. Didn’t your so-called senator, Sandy Murruy support Nafta before she was against it?
You guys are a joke. You didn’t win and now you’re trying to screw the people that did.
BTW, Boeing thought people in Mobile could build planes too. They wanted to build planes at the same exact site as Northrop Grumman - EADS. The only reason they didn’t was because of an LNG plant that was going to be built in the area. The LNG plant wasn’t built so now Northrop-EADS is building at that site. Again, Boeing thought people in Mobile could build them but now they decided against it.
This is way too much hypocrisy for me.
The Obama supporting tree-huggers in Washington think building Air Force tankers is an entitlement program. They think that only they deserve these jobs.
Boeing lost the most fair process in the history of defense procurement. This is after they tried to cheat the Air Force and the tax payers the time before.
Also, Boeing is trying to wrap the American flag around their planes. However, their new 787 that is 2 years behind schedule is 70% foreign content.
It is sad how easy it is to buy influence in this counrty. EADS got NG to front for them., Promised to build a factory and spend a bunch of money on lobbyists, and look at the rabid support.
I suggest you read the original column that is the source of the newspaper story. Keep in mind this was the guy the Air Force leaked information to to get their talking points out. Laws may have been broken right there. (insider trading for one).
So check out the column and see if you can counter even one point.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml
Nada? You burn an extra ton of fuel for every hour the larger plane operates. And you say that is nada. The Air Force increased the price of Boeing’s offer to make it look more expensive. Do you know how much. Do you want to guess....
$30 million out of $108B 25 year lifetime cost. That is like deciding which $300k house to by based on a $90 difference.
And it also ignores the aforementioned fuel burn difference.
Same old same old.
I read it the first time and see no need to read it again.
There’s a lot of foreign defense companies in the US. This is nothing new. Check out BAE.
I know that lobbyist that EADS has been paying for almost 10 years. There was nothing wrong with that. Boeing on the other hand, lines to pockets of every politician that has any influence on the process.
This was the most fair and transparent process in the history of defense contracts. I am not buying for one second that was not the case. Otherwise, Boeing would have opened their mouths sooner.
Boeing wrapping themselves around the American flag is a JOKE. 70%+ of their new Dreamliner is FOREIGN.
As far as I know the Dreamliner wasn’t in the bid. The link I gave you was the full text. So you can’t say it was just the local paper spinning it.
How does Boeing line politicians pockets in a way that NG or EADS doesn’t? Legal contribuitons are just that, legal.
The week after the copntract was awarded Airbus flew the complete airplane to a hangar to begin the modification. They even put an American flag in the window so you knew how true blue it was. But if it was ready one week after the announcement how much input could NG have had in it. I would guess close to zero. Those are the high paid engineering jobs.
Nope that job was done in Europe. Guess what if they sell any to other countries 0.0% of that work will be US too. They already set up a company called Euro tanker for those sales.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.