Patriotism, Aerospace Industry-Style

AmericanEconomicAlert.org ^ | Tuesday, May 25, 2004 | Alan Tonelson

[Willie Green]

ping

[rimmont]

It is understandable that the U.S. aerospace industry would take this position. As usual, the weak link is the absence of scruples on the part of the Eurinpeein aerospace industry.

[Willie Green]

What? If the Euroweenies sell arms and munitions to potential enemies, we should too?

IMHO, you should take a closer look for a "weak link" and "absence of scruples".

[Rockitz]

At one time this country had the intellect to stay ahead of this kinda crap by the greedy Europeans and Japan, but I question whether that's the case anymore. The Second Cold War with China is "on" in earnest and we may be on our own if we can't hold the line on sales of export-controlled technology from our so-called "allies."

[ninenot]

All the scruples and principles of Boeing are concentrated in the southeast corner of its balance sheet. Ask anybody in Seattle.

"...and they will sell us the rope with which we will HANG them..."

[Gunrunner2]

Seattle is the COMMERCIAL side of Boeing.

St Louis is the military side, though some of the F-22 (Training) is run out of Seattle.

[ninenot]

Seattle is where Boeing has dumped its ex-employee factory workers.

[Gunrunner2]

Uhh. . .not sure what you mean. . .please explain.

Boeing has military programs being manufactured in St Louis, and the guys in Seattle work the commercial industry. "Dumping" employees from the growing and expanding military business side to the cyclic up-and-down commercial side? Not a good course of action.

[XBob]

Boeing is getting out of the aircraft manufacturing business, so, deserves none of our military business.

[Gunrunner2]

Uhh. . .now you have me more confused.

The commercial side in Seattle is pushing hard for the 7E7 "Dreamliner." The military side in St Louis is pushing hard for the F/A-18. Seems to me they are keeping to their core business of aircraft making.

As far as not "giving" them any military business, you really need to clear that up for me.

First, they compete like everyone else--locate opportunities, review the RFP's, develop proposals, submit proposals, etc.

Second, they are chosen (or not chosen) in accordance with public law. Therefore, to exclude Boeing would be to reduce an already small number of competitors in the business, as well as violate public law.

What ya gonna do, make a law and say Boeing can't compete?

And on what grounds?

Would like to know.

[Gunrunner2]

Oh, and making C-17's and pushing to sell many more of those too.

[XBob]

11 - As I said, Boeing is getting out of the aircraft manufacturing business. It has not been widely publicized, but it has been publicized.

Boeing will no longer manufacture aircraft or parts. They are selling off all their manufacturing capabilities, and offshoring them too.

Boeing is going to become an 'integrator', and will only 'assemble' parts made by other manufacturers.

As an example, you say "The commercial side in Seattle is pushing hard for the 7E7 "Dreamliner." "

Sort of true, except that boeing will only assemble the parts for it, and will only use about 700 Boeing personnel for a whole new generation of passenger aircraft.

[XBob]

Many of the new Boeing parts which they will 'assemble' are now being made in China, so I am adamantly against giving Boeing any new military contracts.

[r9etb]

All the scruples and principles of Boeing are concentrated in the southeast corner of its balance sheet. Ask anybody in Seattle.

Of course, you meant to say "Chicago," which merely goes to prove your point....

I'm a bit more hopeful now that Phil Condom is gone, though.

[ninenot]

Chicago is HQ--but Seattle is where the massive layoffs are occurring.

Condit was a creep. Not quite as bad as Lay of Enron, nor as bad as the Arthur Andersen crowd, ---but there are a LOT of good questions McCain has raised about Boeing's lease-deal for refueling aircraft (which apparently is now dead.)

Ike was right: be very skeptical of the military-industrial complex.

[r9etb]

Chicago is HQ--but Seattle is where the massive layoffs are occurring.

Well, yes.... it was an oblique reference to your "bottom line" comment.

As for McCain's questions -- some are valid, but I can't help but wonder whose pocket he's in.

[ninenot]

I don't trust McCain at all, but in the case at hand, the facts spoke for themselves pretty clearly. I suspect that the deal had some influence on Condit's resignation.

BTW, this AM I saw a news story involving Boeing. Apparently an ex(?)-Boeing employee and Ernst & Young are running around the country offering seminars on "how to clean the pockets of your State and Local Governments"...

Whatta country, eh?

[Gunrunner2]

Which parts?

[Gunrunner2]

Not even close.

I do a lot of work with Boeing (IDS), and have a few business contacts/opportunities I am working with BCA, and it is obvious you know not a heck of a lot of what Boeing is, does and wants to do.

Boeing actively bids on all sorts of contracts, lost the last two major fighter competitions; i.e., F-22, F-35 (fix was in).

7E7 is a great jet with market potential to blow that Frog Airbus out the window. Trying hard to open the lines, and when new jets are sold, the lines open. Spares, mods and upgrades are part of the line and the line functions.

Anyway, keep with your biases and I won't confuse you with facts.

Have a nice day. . .(*click*---Ignore on)