Posted on 03/08/2008 4:24:09 AM PST by tobyhill
Boeing had 15% of the work overseas had they got the contract so either way there’s no winning for losing.
15% is a helluva lot better than a bulk of it.. do we know for sure how much of the craft would be built here and where at this point?
The dust is just settling on this, or should I say, just getting kicked up. ;-)
Boeing concentrated on building a better product than simply whining about a contract that it lost in a fair process.
McCain is not going to the liberal loser votes in Seattle
Northrupp Gunman is a great company and as American as Boeing is, and also builds a superior product.
In order to get this Aircraft built in Mobile anytime soon you need to get the facility built before Spring of next year. Good luck to you and McCain. The Air Forces schedule and the Governors site building schedule don’t blend well.
http://www.governorpress.alabama.gov/pr/pr-2008-01-14-01-airbus2.asp
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/TANK03038.xml
Maybe you will get some jobs after the prototypes are tested. Of course you realize that this Airbus has never flown and has never been built for anyone...
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_01_17_A330-200F_go_ahead.html
They are taking an existing airframe and putting a new larger wing on it. Many factors including stress to be worked out yet. The American War Fighter isn’t gettig the best but he might if the promises made by EADS turn out to be true. For me I think the extensive use of Composites including a larger vertical stabilizer will make this Aircraft a ten year wonder. Airbus has had some problems with Composites in the tail of all their Aircraft.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htm
The Air Force changed some key requirements (RISK) such as the runway length which then required Boeing to add a larger wing (-400) to the 767. This then put them at a similar wing span to the Airbus. If the Air Force not changed this then the Boeing product was at an advantage. Now neither aircraft will fit into existing hangar space. Thats another shoe the Air Force will drop in the next few years with more Base closings in order to add adequate hangar space.
By the way the Boeing Proposal was $35 million cheaper than the Airbus deal even with subsidies. If Boeing decides then we will most likely get the truth of what this is about. I doubt we’ll get it anywhere else.
Related news:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120493865310221183.html?mod=MKTW
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db2008037_973817.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
This should go over well:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/eads-mulls-changes-block-higher/story.aspx?guid=%7B37E0BCEF%2D1EC1%2D4738%2D9F62%2D0F3E640E4392%7D&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN
See the comments section:
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bA1285732-2C90-40C2-951F-4C62CB74B09B%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo#comments
“Rumsfeld cancelled Boeing’s initial pact for 100 reconfigured planes after U.S. Sen. John McCain, D-Ariz., now the presumed Republican nominee for president, questioned the wisdom of leasing aircraft back in 2003.”
Let’s see, if all the Airlines lease Aircraft that must be a bad thing too... Wow I wonder why they lease.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B2D6ED8C2%2DCB28%2D40CC%2D956B%2D5A6828DB6E15%7D&dist=WSJfeed&siteid=WSJ
“For EADS, the $35 billion order is a landmark victory that seals its efforts to expand in North America and grab a larger part of the U.S. defense budget... Overall Northrop said 60% of the plane will be built in the U.S. and the project would support 25,000 jobs. Boeing claims it would have created 44,000 had it won.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B40F030A1%2DC41C%2D4C20%2DBDEA%2D05D78D9D6F38%7D&dist=WSJfeed&siteid=WSJ
“These would be the Seattle wackos and the Chicago criminals, both of which are lefties”
Wow, what a stupid thing to say. This would include all of Boeing’s suppliers in 40 states, most of whom are red states. The factory where the tanker conversion would take place is in deep-red Kansas.
My grandfather worked for Northrup for over 30 years and it would have been longer had he not got cancer.
LOL.. I was just gonna say, I wonder how all the Republicans out there who work for Boeing and subcontractors feel being lumped in with all the scumbags employed by Boeing in Washington State.
There are few if any US corps that have not run afoul of the political and military high up mucky mucks at some point in business dealings with the gubamint.
“60% is still being built in America and will probably employee as many people as Boeing would have.”
That’s a blatant falsehood. Not even Northrop Grumman claims that. The only American made components of this plane will be the GE engines. The NG factory in Alabama will be nothing but a final assembly point. All of the other parts will be fabricated in Europe and shipped here. As for building parts here, we have nothing but a nebulous promise from NG and Airbus that they “might” shift some of the production here at some point in the process. Nothing has been committed to.
They can move to Alabama and go work for Northrup. Boeing executives would have pulled their same stunts as they always do had they got the contract and there are fine workers there that Northrup would find beneficial to their company.
“Comparatively, Boeing’s 776 tanker is 85 percent built in the United States.
“The direct impact of the Air Force’s decision is not an increase of 27,000 new jobs, as Northrop Grumman-EADS claims, but a loss of 12,570 American jobs.***
http://republicans.armedservices.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=427
Boeing was not going to hire “new” employees because the union contract won't allow them until they use existing workers from their canceled contracts. Northrup would have to hire workers for the brand new project which would probably be equal to the “new” workers Boeing would have had to bring in. Of the 12,570 jobs lost, mostly Boeing's workers, many of them could move to Alabama and try to get jobs there. Boeing can't keep ripping the Government off then expect to keep getting rewarded for it.
It’s all comes down to numbers in the end. We’ll see what plays out.
There are a lot of fine employees all over this country that would welcome the jobs..
I’m not denying there maybe a loss of jobs and since both companies at least tinker with foreign entities that is a possibility with either company getting the contracts but as for this, I wish Alabama well.
It’s a net loss of jobs and the multiplier effect of money not being spent here in the US comes at a bad time for the US economy.
The only positive thing that can come out of this is that Boeing and Northrop(yuck/EADS) will compete against each other now, thus giving us better aircraft and at better value in the long run with another aircraft assembly plant in the US.
So? The KC-45A is not based on the A330-200F, which is a A330-200 with improved container/pallet handling - while handy for commercial operators has less military application
The KC-45A is based on the A330-200, which has been flying since 1998.
The KC-30B tanker has been flying since June 2007
And KC-30-D1, the first aircraft for the USAF contract flew in September 2007.
All these variants are practically identical
OTOH the Boeing offer, the KC767AT, is a bitzer with subsemblies from various 767 versions, which not only hasn't flown, Boeing hasn't even started to see how the bits will fit together.
Correction: one "Boeing" (read: McDonald-Douglas) exec and one Air Force official got prison.
The way Boeing is complaining I thought they were 100% American.
That's only because it's based on a 26 year old plane based on a 30 year old design. The 787 which would be an even better tanker than the A330 if it could be offered l0 years from now, has much more foreign content. It's not the fly by wire system that makes the A330 superior; it's the better aerodyamics of the wing at takeoff and during climb. Boeing wings tend to be designed for optimal performance during the cruise phase of flight. Airbus wings tend to be optimized for takeoff and climb. That's why their tanker could take off with a much larger fuel load from 7000' runways.
The quote, ***“Comparatively, Boeing’s 776 tanker is 85 percent built in the United States.”*** came from the current bid information.
VS
EADS - European Aeronautic Defense & Space Company 2,000 new jobs, and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.
Exactly!
They should bid on development for a star wars system for Putin er, I mean his mini-me.
Hey, it would employ US citizens right?
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.