I'm looking for a comparison (chart) of the tanker bids if anyone has read / found one. I checked Rep. Bonners website as I had heard he had information but it must have been removed.
I've been involved in a discussion about how many jobs will be created, how much money this will make the US as opposed to foreign economies, ect and wish to have documentation to back up my side.
I have to head to work now but will try to look up the information and post a chart of it later if no one has it handy.
Thanks

I have not seen a chart like you describe, but I think it would be a great idea.

A differing point of view on the tanker controversy.

Unlike many Mobilians, I am not very enthused about the decision to build refueling tankers here.

Before I go any further, let me say that I think the decision to go with EADS/NG was the better one, if you limit the debate to whether EADS/NG or Boeing was the better deal for the Air Force.

It saddens me though to see Mobile throwing its eggs into the Federal largess basket, and calling it “Mobile’s Makeover,”

For those alive back in 1964, you might recall how a vindictive LBJ--in retaliation for Mobile not supporting his presidential bid--had the DOD close Brookley. At the time, it was the largest military base closing ever.

The Fed giveth, and the Fed taketh away. For every Makeover, there is a Makeunder.

It’s always nauseating to see politicians going around and patting themselves on the back for creating “jobs,” and promoting economic growth. It’s a game of charades played for TV cameras. There is no photo-op for Jo Bonner when ten new nail salons open, only when he can be party to a political deal. If city leaders could really create jobs, then most of the growth wouldn't be in unincorporated areas of West Mobile.

So here is a brief economic lesson. The government can’t create a job. The only power the government has is the power of the gun. The government takes money from you in taxes, keeps some of it, and then doles the rest out to those with pull and the politically connected. Boeing is very politically connected, which is why there is so much hoopla about the decision. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it anymore.

It order to create a job that pays $50 grand a year, the government first had to tax somebody $50 grand, plus the money it took to pay the various clerks at the IRS to process the collection.

This means that for every new “job” the government creates, it destroyed one somewhere else (one that performed a service that someone in the private sector actually wanted, as opposed to what a government committee wanted.)

Now the argument can be made that as long as this process goes on, and as long as we can’t do anything about it, then Mobile should at least get its share of the “pie.” Well, fair enough, as long as you realize that just as the tide washes in, the tide also washes out.

And also as long as you realize that the decision is a political one. It does not matter one iota that EADS/NG might make a better tanker for a better price. The Pentagon pays $100 dollars for toilet seats and hammers. Cost for value has little meaning when the bill is paid by Uncle Sucker.

So the Fed giveth and the Fed taketh away.......And then the Fed giveth back. We should at least get the chance to use those $100. toilet seats here without having to go to Seattle to use them. That's why I'm for having two bathrooms instead of just one. It increases your property value in the long run. Meta4ickly.

I hope the AF contract is the catalyst that opens up this area as an aeronautical supplier for the commercial market. This country needs serious competition in that arena so that pricing will have some limiting factors.

Here is a chart showing a comparison of the features of the Tankers
http://media.mgbg.com/krg/flashpaper/kc-x_tanker.swf

you can also find it in this article
http://www.wkrg.com/news/article/the_kc_30_mobiles_other_big_deal/3996/

That is an excellent chart that gives everyone a quick glimpse of the K-30's capabilities. We also need to see a cost comparison and number of deliverable tankers, etc.

I don't think Boeing has a leg to stand on, if the objective was to get the best product at the best price. Boeing apparently feels the same way, because their public outcry is more directed toward foreign competition and national security. I think those items have been addressed very well by Northrop, but the message is falling on deaf ears in Washington state and Kansas. Those two states appear to be the squeaky wheels on Capitol Hill these days.

What it comes down to is they lost so they want to protest. The fact is mobile got the contract fairly and I don't belive mobilians jobs should be snatched out of thier hands because somebody wants to throw a temper tantrum because they didn't win.

Robertsbabygirl - 18 March 2008 01:15 PM

What it comes down to is they lost so they want to protest. The fact is mobile got the contract fairly and I don't belive mobilians jobs should be snatched out of thier hands because somebody wants to throw a temper tantrum because they didn't win.

So I'm guessing had Boeing initally won the contract, everyone down here would be against the inevitable protest against the decision in Boeing's favor.

I doubt it.