[SkyPilot]

The commander of USTRANSCOM, Gen Schwartz, and the commander of Air Military Command, Gen McNabb (who I used to work for) both said they wanted less than the 191. They concluded this due to an in depth analysis of the airlift surge we have been undergoing since OEF and OIF. They wanted to money earmarked for the KC-X tanker replacement instead.

With all respects to Rep Talent, this wasn't a "victory" for the US military or the nation. It was a "victory" for his Congressional district.

Furthermore, Congress has needlessly driven up the cost of the C-17 fleet by insisting the Air Force base them in places the Air Force said they didn't want them based (Hawaii, Alaska, and Mississippi). It costs millions in military dollars to put those aircraft there because the Air Force has to spend money for infrastructure assocated with the C-17. Sen Stevens (R-Alaska), Sen Inouye (D-Hawaii) were just playing pork barrel politics with a strategic airlifter that has no business being stationed there.

[UNGN]

Furthermore, Congress has needlessly driven up the cost of the C-17 fleet...

The C-17 is a great plane, but the fact they are made in Long Beach has also "needlessly driven up their cost".

Since government contracts and the profit you make is are based on the "Cost", no wonder Boeing wants to build them in one of the highest cost locations in the US.

Then they get the engines built in Connecticut and then have them overhauled in San Francisco. Not exactly a recipe for saving money.

No wonder big planes are 1/2 a billion dollars, now.