For 60 some odd years boeing had MOST of the airplane contracts for the U.S. Air Force. Seems a little strange that nobody else in the country can put together an airplane EXCEPT them. Wow, the people of the south must really be stupid. Why can I not find them? All I keep finding here is smart and brilliant people. Or I know,to build airplanes you must not have ANY manners . (I am a truckdriver, I see it a lot when I go out west.)

Leave our tanker ALONE! whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Your Tiffany Craig's our favorite reporter-gal. And such a fine Scot lassie too!! ;-)

Boeing should leave this contract alone after their criminal conviction with the military and then their product being rejected for being inadequate for the project.

.

Five years ago Darleen Druyun, the principal Air Force acquisition decision maker, retired from civil service and accepted a job as Deputy General Manager for Missile Defense Systems at Boeing. Her daughter and son-in-law also acquired Boeing jobs about that time. The jobs were in exchange for Druyun actively promoting a Boeing tanker deal. Because of this and other irregularities she ended up going to jail for 6 or 7 months. Based on this [public] knowledge, I consider Boeing's past performance untrustworthy and unacceptable! The Air Force made the correct decision by not awarding to Boeing!

It is a shame that the government contracting procedures are so inundated with politics rather than getting a quality product for a reasonable cost. Senator O'Bama even weighed in on the awarding of the tanker contract to EADS/Northrop-Grumman and I suspect quite a few other politicians did as well. I have nothing against Senator O'Bama, but he should have not said anything about the award. None of the folks running for the office of the President of the United States should have said anything about the award. The awarding of a government contract is a long affair with many checks and balances built in to the process. It is apparent that the Air Force folks determined that Northrop-Grumman/EADS would provide the product they need at a reasonable cost. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the bid submitted by Boeing was much higher than that submitted by Northrop-Grumman/EADS. In our shaky economy, I have to applaud the Air Force for not bending to the political pressure and for their not spending more of our money.

I live in Wichita, and my husband works at Spirit. Spirit bought out Boeings commercial side here, and is responsible for the tools Boeing uses. Boeing owes money to Spirit for said tools, however, this isn't really relevant. What is relevant is the fact that all though I have no love for Boeing one way or the other, I can agree that certain things were not done properly as far as the bidding "war" is concerned. I have been a resident of Alabama and can say it is a great state, but I do not think the Air Force or anyone else is currently thinking about the people of any state that may or may not be affected by their decision. What I think they are concerned with, as always, is their own agenda. I think it was underhanded that the Air Force asked Boeing to make some changes with their bid which in turn caused it to go up. I have noticed some commenting on the high bid which is why I address that. I also think it was underhanded that they AF stated that, yes they wanted to replace one plane and turned around and chose a replacement for something else. Well, once again I say it really doesn't matter what I think as they will do what they think is best for them. How about the bases that will get these new planes. Has anyone stopped to consider how much in tax dollars will need to be spent before this happens to retrofit them, airports, etc. for these new planes? Runways will need to be enlarged for one thing, which I am sure is costly. What about the brand new hangers that need to be built in order to house these planes? How much is that going to cost? Now I will agree that U.S. workers in Mobile will be used, but what I think the real problem is, is the fact that NG is a french company not U.S. I don't think it would matter what the name of the company was if it was indeed a U.S. company. I will end my little rant now, but I want it known that if the bid stays where it is now I am ok with that. However, I wish all the bickering over who is better, Ks or Al, would cease. Both states have their good and bad qualities and I think what we all need to keep in mind is the fact that no matter who builds this or that it affects us all equally.

Niceville Bill - 14 March 2008 10:34 PM

Five years ago Darleen Druyun, the principal Air Force acquisition decision maker, retired from civil service and accepted a job as Deputy General Manager for Missile Defense Systems at Boeing. Her daughter and son-in-law also acquired Boeing jobs about that time. The jobs were in exchange for Druyun actively promoting a Boeing tanker deal. Because of this and other irregularities she ended up going to jail for 6 or 7 months. Based on this [public] knowledge, I consider Boeing's past performance untrustworthy and unacceptable! The Air Force made the correct decision by not awarding to Boeing!

Northrop has it's won share of corruption.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0110300253oct30,0,4101255,full.story

At least Boeing did the right thing and exposed the scandal, then fired everyone involved.

It is great that jobs are coming to Alabama, but would you rather those jobs be with a company that fesses up to its problems or one that covers them up.

babyice2197 - 21 March 2008 06:44 PM

... I think it was underhanded that the Air Force asked Boeing to make some changes with their bid which in turn caused it to go up. I have noticed some commenting on the high bid which is why I address that. I also think it was underhanded that they AF stated that, yes they wanted to replace one plane and turned around and chose a replacement for something else. ....

I thought the government put out requirements and the aircraft that met those requirements at the lowest cost won? I keep reading that they like the Airbus because it was bigger. If the Air Force was asking for a bigger plane then Boeing should have bid the 777. You are making it sound like the Air Force put out one set of requirements and then changed them later or was giving Airbus credit for providing something above and beyond what was needed.

I am simply saying what was reported by the news here.Has anyone seen the bid proposals at all? I'm not sure what is reported there about all of this but our stations have been reporting hardly anything but this forever it seems. Frankly I am tired of hearing about it. What was reported was that when Boeing first put in the bid there was certain things the AF wanted changed. Accordingly Boeing made the changes, but the said changes forced Boeing to up the bid price. We all know the result. We have not heard any retractions so far so all anyone can do is think on it and come up with their own conclusions. As for Boeing biding the bigger plane, they were told By the AF that they (AF) were looking to downsize the tanker but with some similarities as the current tanker. The AF then decided they wanted a bigger one. It raises questions but as I said before, it doesn't matter what any of us think really.