Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing tanker fight isn't over, political leaders say
HeraldNet.com (Everett, Washington) ^ | Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Jim Haley, Herald Writer

Posted on 03/02/2008 2:51:03 PM PST by Paleo Conservative

What could have been a done deal for the Boeing Co. five years ago came down to a two-horse race and finally a multibillion dollar loss for Everett on Friday in the sweepstakes to supply the Air Force with new jet refueling tankers.

The Air Force's announcement that the $35 billion deal goes to Northrop-Grumman and Europe's Airbus parent, EADS, angered members of Washington's congressional delegation and raised the prospect of congressional hearings on the decision.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," six members of the congressional delegation said in a joint statement. "This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's men and women in uniform."

"I was shocked by the announcement today that the Air Force intends to award the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to the Airbus-Northrop Grumman team, and I believe there will be real skepticism among the defense-related committees in Congress," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Dicks is a powerful member of a Defense Appropriation Committee, and funding of the tankers will have to go through his panel.

"While we will await the debriefing of the Boeing team to learn how and why the decision was made, I remain convinced that the Boeing 767 tanker version would have been an extremely capable aircraft that would have created 40,000 U.S. jobs, including 9,000 in Washington state," Dicks said.

...............

Congressional members say they hope the decision wasn't influenced by a Boeing procurement scandal five years ago. And they expect Boeing to protest the decision.

...............

The GAO has 100 days to deny or uphold a protest.


(Excerpt) Read more at heraldnet.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 110th; aerospace; airbus; boeing; defensecontractors; dod; eads; fueltanker; kc45; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-128 next last
To: thecabal
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?

21 posted on 03/02/2008 3:26:26 PM PST by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 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?


22 posted on 03/02/2008 3:30:25 PM PST by YOUGOTIT (The Greatest Threat to our Security is the US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecabal

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!)


23 posted on 03/02/2008 3:34:35 PM PST by BamaDi (John McCain.....not my first choice but the alternative is unacceptable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 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?

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.

24 posted on 03/02/2008 3:38:18 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shortwave

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


25 posted on 03/02/2008 3:38:24 PM PST by alpo (Allright.... Who fatwa'd....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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!

26 posted on 03/02/2008 3:43:30 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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!

27 posted on 03/02/2008 3:44:47 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
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.

28 posted on 03/02/2008 3:52:09 PM PST by Solitar ("My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." -- Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BamaDi

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.


29 posted on 03/02/2008 3:58:29 PM PST by centurion316 (Democrats - Supporting Al Qaida Worldwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 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.


30 posted on 03/02/2008 4:12:39 PM PST by Solitar ("My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." -- Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thecabal
...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.

31 posted on 03/02/2008 4:17:03 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

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.


32 posted on 03/02/2008 4:19:17 PM PST by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
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.

33 posted on 03/02/2008 4:26:29 PM PST by Solitar ("My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." -- Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Random Access

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


34 posted on 03/02/2008 4:26:49 PM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

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


35 posted on 03/02/2008 4:27:31 PM PST by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

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.


36 posted on 03/02/2008 4:31:37 PM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tessalu

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.


37 posted on 03/02/2008 4:32:05 PM PST by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

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.


38 posted on 03/02/2008 4:34:03 PM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

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.”


39 posted on 03/02/2008 4:36:40 PM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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.
40 posted on 03/02/2008 4:37:45 PM PST by 7thOF7th (Righteousness is our cause and justice will prevail!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-128 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson