Posted on 03/12/2008 9:01:43 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Apparently the infamous Murtha was in on this.
For Pete's sake, several Boeing officials and an Air Force official went to jail trying to game the bidding for Boeing.
Tears in your beer, Boeing.
Bears repeating.
“It takes a lot of chutzpa for Boeing, who tried to cheat to get this deal, to whine about losing the contract to a much better design by Northrup and EADS.”
Cheat? The Air Force had to change the RFP at the last minute so that Northrup even qualified to submit a bid.
Airbus sells a fraction of the planes Boeing does on the open market. Boeing clearly has the superior product.
Airbus France and GM-FORD-CHRYSLER are all suffering from the same problem good workers but complacent in there every day work ethic. Workers of America heed the downfall of Eastern Airlines. You cannot expect business to survive when they have to pay a guy or gal 15 bucks an hour to push a broom.
Boeing did the crime they must pay. The people of Washington State look down on the US Military with absolute disdain now its time for payback.
Berkley Cal is next.
Here's a link to a thread I posted almost two years ago.
Iran Overhauls Five 747 Bowings
ISNA - Tehran (Iranian Students News Agency) ^ | 07-09-2006 | Staff
Posted on 07/10/2006 11:04:37 AM CDT by Paleo Conservative
The proposed 767 couldn't take off from a 7000' runway with a full load of fuel. The 767 tanker would be great if if you had a conflict in Europe and could use existing NATO air bases desinged around the KC-135. If you have a conflict in some remote part of the world like Afghanistan, it would be nice to have the ability to have a tanker that can take off from runways that exist in places like Kandahar.
How so? was Lockheed-Martin involved?
Don’t know. Not familiar with any details as yet, but it might become necessary if this deal blows up.
This is an interesting claim and should be easily verified or refuted. If Boeing is truly claiming this and it is refuted, it will greatly harm their credibility for other claims. But I also note that Reuters is reporting this and I don't trust them to get their facts straight.
This is an interesting claim and should be easily verified or refuted. If Boeing is truly claiming this and it is refuted, it will greatly harm their credibility for other claims. But I also note that Reuters is reporting this and I don't trust them to get their facts straight.
“If you have a conflict in some remote part of the world like Afghanistan, it would be nice to have the ability to have a tanker that can take off from runways that exist in places like Kandahar.”
Do you have adequate fuel in Kandahar to load the tankers with?
None of which changes the fact that Boeing sells more plane on the competitive market than Airbus. That means Boeing has a better product.
It also doesn’t change the fact that Northrup couldn’t meet the requirements until they got the Air Force to amend the request.
Didn’t you used to live in Washington state and post a number of Boeing related threads?
Did you change employers?
I’ve never lived in Washington sate. I still live in Texas.
The A330 has outsold the 767 big time since the A330/A340 came into service in the early 1990's. If Boeing made such competitive products, why did United order the A320 to replace its 727's? It wasn't till Boeing developed the "Next Generation" 737 models ten years later with an entirely new wing that they stemmed the loss of orders for their narrow bodied planes.
The Air Force is still stinging from the Boeing 767 tanker lease agreement disaster of a few years ago. It's not surprising that they may have changed the rules to be able to choose "anyone but Boeing" this time around. If anyone discounts the Air Force's need to distance itself from Boeing, they are living in wonderland.
There's nothing fair or equitable about the Airbus-Boeing commercial battle. Airbus is subsidized by EU governments just to be able to compete against a superior Boeing product. Now our Air Force has chosen Airbus (quite possibly unfairly) in their competition with Boeing on this military contract - and, consequently, helped Airbus on the commercial front.
This is an embarrassment and a bad deal for Americans and their tax dollars - for decades to come.
bump
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.