Boeing tanker fight isn't over, political leaders say

HeraldNet.com (Everett, Washington) ^ | Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Jim Haley, Herald Writer

[RightWhale]

I’m all for keeping jobs in the US, but why should we subsidize Boeing if they had the inferior product?

If it is a strategic industry then it should be required. Maybe aircraft production is not considered a strategic industry. Is it?

[YOUGOTIT]

So we will now be flying, or is it skidding, French built planes that they can cut off the spare parts anytime they want and when Islam takes over the EU what is the next move?

[BamaDi]

thank you very much for that comment....the NG-EADS product has been proven to be the better aircraft....and Boeing has bought and paid for those politicians....And as an Alabamian and an American I resent the politicians who are screaming about this contract acting as if we are not American here in Alabama....WTF, are we Martians (as one of our local columnist said this morning).....IMHO, the contract should go to the best product and that’s NG-EADS!!! Boeing has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar too many times and folks have gone to jail over it! Besides all of that, I don’t feel too warmly towards the socialists that live in WA or Oregon....someone had a great idea this morning in our local paper, let’s all of us Mobilians quit buying Starbucks.....(joking!)

[Paleo Conservative]

So we will now be flying, or is it skidding, French built planes that they can cut off the spare parts anytime they want and when Islam takes over the EU what is the next move?

Actually many of the parts are built in the US. I would bet that the contract would require full disclosure of all the CAD models and drawings of all parts and the materials used in every part. With GE engines, it's about 50% US content. The 767 has more domestic content, but the 787 has lots of more foreign than previous Boeing aircraft.

[alpo]

Maybe the French will let us overfly France on the way to bombing Arabs if we use Airbus tankers.

[Grut]

The 767 fits in the same space as a KC-135R and can use the same hangers but carries more fuel and uses less runway than the KC-135R to take off. The KC-30 has a much bigger wing span that will require building new hangers and pouring concrete at exisiting air bases to make room for the planes on the ground.

You don't seriously think the Air Force objects to being 'required' to upgrade its facilities, do you? Au contraire!

[thefactor]

so let me get this straight:

it was a 2 horse race. it was between boeing and the euros. and NOW, after it was awarded, lawmakers are unhappy?

couldn't they have forseen this? did no one think, "well, gee, if it doesn't go to boeing it's going to the european's. and i won't like that."

why include anyone else if you're just going to complain if they get it?

let me guess, the gov't requires competitive bidding. well then, this is what you get!

[Solitar]

I also read that the Airbus 3 series aircraft use less fuel when they get to cruising altitude, but are a gas hogs getting there compared to similar US planes. This means that they’re best at long trips over 1000 miles, something we can’t count on

We need airlift capability to land a hundred thousand troops anywhere on Earth in ten days. Example: Eastern US to Afghanistan is 7000 nautical miles. without forward refueling bases, our airlift capability is screwed. The C-17 has a range of 2800 nm and would need to be refueled twice to get there, plus again immediately after take off from the combat theater. We need tankers which can fly with the airlift and refuel aircraft as needed.

Boeing's 777 has a range of 8000 nm and can take off with a grand total of 400,000 lbs of fuel in both wings and fuselage. Airbus's A330-200, aka KC-45, has a range of 7000 nm and can take off with a grand total of 240,000 lbs of fuel in both wings and fuselage (maybe 300,000 if they strip more weight off). For comparison, the KC-135 has a range of 3000 nm and can take off with a grand total of 220,000 lbs of fuel in both wings and fuselage. The Airbus A330-200, aka KC-45, is thus equivalent to the KC-135. Neither will be enough to refuel C-17's in a massive, long distance airlift which is deprived of forward air base refueling.

We need massive refueling ability! Something bigger, perhaps, than the Airbus A380-F which has a range of 5600 nm and can take off with a grand total of 740,000 lbs of fuel in both wings and fuselage; and something which perhaps could land on 1000 meter US Navy refueling platforms.

[centurion316]

Having cheated and gotten caught, and having competed and lost, Boeing is now looking to politicians to bail them out. Insteresting that the Washington Granola Bar delegate is now so interested in National Defense.

I don’t know which airplane is better or which proportion will be built in the U.S. (airplane components are now built worldwide). But, I do know that politicians are bought and paid for, and not by the voters.

[Solitar]

The tanker we really need is Boeing’s 747-8 with a range 8000 nm and which can take off with a grand total of 560,000 lbs of fuel in both wings and fuselage. Maybe with a decent Republican President and Congress we could get a few hundred of those.

[DuncanWaring]

...why should we subsidize Boeing if they had the inferior product?

There's been considerable discussion over the years of a 777-based tanker vs. a 767-based tanker; the consensus seemed to be that the USAF didn't want an airplane as big as a 777.

Now it appears they've picked the A330-based tanker because it's bigger.

Doesn't make sense.

[fleagle]

I had read where this contract would allow EADS/Northrop Grumman to add 1,000+ jobs in their Mobile, Alabama location. I wouldn’t call this bad news.

[Solitar]

The A330 is smaller than the 777 in length, and wingspan and about two-thirds of the empty weight, two-thirds of the fuel, and two-thirds of the payload.

The Air Force cheaped out compared to what really is needed. But maybe they are saving for Boeing the really big tanker -- based on the 747.

[nyconse]

Airbus outsources more of its work to China...check it out there were threads yesterday that demonstrated that clearly.

[fleagle]

Here’s some info on how U.S. workers will benefit from this decision:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html

[nyconse]

You have a contract worth billions over the next ten years...what do our wonderful leaders get? 1500 jobs and one dinky assembly plant. It’s not just the jobs we lost directly. It’s all the secondary money from suppliers. Not to mention, Boeing employees will be laid off in Kansas for sure and other places as well. I wonder how much the GOP was paid this time to shaft the American worker. I hope it’s worth all the social ill this policy causes: unemployment, mortgage defaults (can’t pay your mortgage when you are out of work), national health care (the more uninsured the more like this will happen. If you sat down and weighed all the issues. This plane is going to cost the tax payers big money.

[Elsiejay]

How much of the high-tech electronic equipment that our military forces absolutely depend on is wholly manufactured in foreign countries, or contains vital components for which we depend in foreign sources? Far too much, would be my guess, and I believe that a consequence of this dependency is that our national security and survival is not nearly as certain as we would like it to be.

[nyconse]

This was what might happen before the contract was awarded-supposition...However, if you read current stories. The only jobs will be the ones in Alabama. The parts will be built overseas in Europe (they didn’t say but probably China as well ) and assembled in Alabama. Northrup is a front man really.

[nyconse]

This is the truth: Notice nothing is made anywhere only assembled in Alabama. It’s a sad day for America.

Large sections of the Northrop/EADS tanker will be built in Europe; they will be shipped across the Atlantic for assembly at a new widebody-jet plant to be built in Mobile, Ala., which will gain some 1,500 direct jobs.

At the Pentagon news conference, Air Force acquisitions chief Sue Payton said categorically that the creation of jobs in the United States was not a factor in the decision.

Payton said the only considerations were “the requirements of the war fighter” balanced with “the best interests of the taxpayer.”

[7thOF7th]

It is my opinion that this award to a French conglomerate is a political move by our leaders to prop up the failing French economy and gain their support for future cooperation with the Iranian situation. This deal will shore up the faltering French economy which bye the way is actually reeling from recent bank frauds estimated to be north of $10 billion. I would imagine there are many more perks to this decision but you can see my point. Another part of this could be the award for the CSAR aircraft. That decision will be made soon and I suspect Boeing will be placated by this smaller award.
The main thing Boeing must do at this time is to execute! The 787 testing is proceeding and in most cases the product exceeds the failure thresholds imposed on it. All Boeing has to do is get that aircraft to certification this year and start delivering. The backlog for this plane goes out years and Boeing gets paid per delivery. The manufacturing of the 787 has been slow to speed but word is that most of the problems are behind now and and for even greater production volume, the idea of additional manufacturing lines has been thrown around. The 787 will help Boeing to continue to be the best aerospace company in the World.