Posted on 03/08/2008 4:24:09 AM PST by tobyhill
WASHINGTON - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.
There are other targets for their ire — the Air Force, the defense secretary and even the entire Bush administration.
But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.
"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.
"Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it."
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its U.S. partner, Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman, won a competition with Boeing Feb. 29 to build the refueling planes in one of the biggest Pentagon contracts in decades. The unexpected decision has sparked outrage from union halls to the halls of Congress over the impact on U.S. jobs, prestige and national security. EADS and Northrop say about 60 percent of their tanker will be built in the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“I don’t think any Politician took a real close look at the original lease deal for the 767 tankers. They just piled on”
My goodness, and here are a bunch of the same folks on FR! Never mind the specifics it was on the evening news, so it must be true! Don’t try to confuse them with facts, they like it like they heard it from the MSM.
Its not just a matter of putting tanks in aircraft. The complete system integration, Engines, fueling boom a load of electronics that you probably wouldn’t understand.
All good reasons why the leftist media was accurate in pushing McCain as a candidate - they KNEW he was a loser and he’s proving it every day.
He’s a disgrace.
“The KC-45A is based on the A330-200, which has been flying since 1998.”
Hi Oztrich, it’s based on the A330-200F (Freighter) which has not flown. This new model is shorter, has a larger wing and taller vertical stab. Heavy use of comoposties of course. Look it up on their web site. I do have a problem with Composites especially in the Vertical Stab of Airbus aircraft. I also feel comforatble saying the Airframe of the Boeing product is proven in the UPS fleet and will prove much stronger. The Air Froce has been ruining airframes with heavy loads in recent years and doesn’t seem interested in durability vs payload tradeoffs.
The Air Force changed the runway length requirements and several other requirements(see my last link) at the last minute and Boeing offered the modified 767 with a larger wing for shorter takeoff distance. Why they didn’t propose the 777 is the real question to ask Boeing and the Air Force. If the Air Force is concerned about flying people and material accross the Pacific then the 777 is tailor made.
“It also forces the European aircraft builder to make good its commitment to shift assembly of the tankers and all A330-200F cargo aircraft to Mobile, Ala.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/TANK03038.xml
“The competition winner, Northrop Grumman/EADS North America, plans to select a contractor within the next month to break ground on new facilities in Mobile, Ala., for final assembly of the KC-45 and A330-200F.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw031008p2.xml
I’ve read that it’s a million square foot facility. Don’t think the will finish that by next summer. Then there’s the question of where the assemblers and related Engineering specialists will come from...
“Boeing conducted an internal study, with input from retired generals, into which airframe to propose. Among the candidates was the larger, more modern 777. Albaugh says the company was “discouraged” from offering the 777.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw031008p2.xml
“”””About 16 months ago, the Air Force withdrew its tanker request-for-proposals — which included capabilities such as cargo, passengers and add-on mission like signals intelligence — to refocus it on the basic A-model task of in-flight refueling so that the primary mission would not be compromised.
When Northrop threatened to pull out of the competition altogether, U.S. officials again changed the competition to add features - including extra credit for cargo and passenger carrying capabilities that aren’t required for the refueling mission.””””
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/PAC03048.xml
Like I said, pie in the sky. Lawsuit time...
“Northrop offered more bang for the buck.
Boeing’s Tankers did not perform as well as Northrop’s”
You may want to reconsider...
“When Northrop threatened to pull out of the competition altogether, U.S. officials again changed the competition to add features - including extra credit for cargo and passenger carrying capabilities that aren’t required for the refueling mission.
Those factors, which go toward providing the “more” as described by Gen. Arthur Lichte, Air Force Air Mobility Command chief, during the tanker-winner announcement, tipped the choice toward Northrop and EADS.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/PAC03048.xml
“The big question now is whether Boeing will protest the award. Spingarn thinks a protest is likely after Boeing receives its debrief from Pentagon officials on March 12. He and other analysts expressed surprise that Air Force procurement officials appeared to favor the A330’s bigger capacity over the 767’s apparent lower operating costs. “We think Boeing would have bid the 777, rather than the 767, if that weighting had been clearer,” Spingarn writes.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/WALL03038.xml
This deal was rigged. Boeing could have added the 777 to the mix but was discouraged. Airbus is desperate to get into the US market and we owe the French for taking a stand against the Iranians. By the way capacity isn’t always the best choice. I think durability is the better choice in these upcomming lean procurement years. However I dont’ have access to billions of dollars in US Taxpayer funds :)
You’re stepping on lots of toes now.
Some are mine too... :)
If Kansas goes "blue" in the general election, then they are as dumb as folks in other blue states.
Well said.
Good one.
The engineers come from Northrop Grumman, Melbourne Fla.
Everybody seems to forget that the contract went to partnership with Northrop-Grumman.
Spending money on Boeing and only Boeing does not strengthen America's defense industry as a whole.
I agree. I like the competition factor.
But, I want to see all of the facts if Boeing appeals.
Threatening McCain with losing Washington is like threatening someone who jumps into a lake of getting wet. Stupid, empty threat.
Besides, Boeing is UNION. Unions HATE Republicans.
Hey, Norm Dicks (nice last name, loser)- If you are reasing this: Grow some BALLS. Don't know what those are? Ask Ann Coulter.
There will be engineers for every part of the air plane and they will come from everywhere.
Net gain for the people in Mobile?—500 janitorial and food service jobs.
There will be engineers for every part of the air plane and they will come from everywhere. Net gain for the people in Mobile?—500 janitorial and food service jobs.
The electronics and S/W engineers are the ones who will militarize the plane. Several hundred Northrop Grumman engineers out of Melbourne Fla. will do that.
I'm NOT guessing that, I'm telling you that.
Meantime, I'm resisting the urge to opine until I know enough.
But I will step softly...
“Several hundred Northrop Grumman engineers”
Why would they need to be in Mobile? Only a few would be needed on the shop floor to relay back and forth information between the groups. Thats how it’s done these days...
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.