Tanker Contest Could Lead To Air Force Changes
By
Published: Wed, March 12, 2008 - 1:29 pm
Last Updated: Wed, March 12, 2008 - 2:19 pm
Last Updated: Wed, March 12, 2008 - 2:19 pm
Hey, folks; egg on my face. My statement,
“I loved my job there . . . but I’m here to cry for Boeing.”
SHOULD have read:
I loved my job there . . . but I’m not here to cry for Boeing.
Mea maxima culpa!
Look at Military Airplane builders, and see how many have a thriving Civilian Airplane business. To me, it seems Boeing’s astounding success in airliners has never translated into Military Airplane success since the Sixties; whereas Lockheed, Convair, et al, were never successful at the Civilian market since that time.
Douglas was successful once upon a time, but by the time Boeing bought them, they were headed for the scrap heap, due to their inability to grow. I hope that Boeing has sent all the clueless McDouglas executives back to California by now.
That marvelous 787 looks like the Old Boeing I’ve known at its most daring, resourceful best. And THAT is how a company should deliver Shareholder Value; not by gaming Wall Street.
Boeing’s main complaint is that the AF discouraged them from using ther 777 as a base. The size and weight of that plane could not meet the requirements.
The 330 offered more capability than the 767, but still remained within the stated requirements for a tanker. Boeing knows that and they also know their protest has no basis. They are just using the protest as a stall tactic while they try to pull in all the politicians on their payroll and get the contract killed in an appropriations committed led by Dicks. Why does that guy’s name always make me think of Richard Cranium?
As far as can be told, both companies are on equal ground. Both companies will offer Americans jobs. Both companies will use some parts from other countries. There was no impropriety in the decision making process. Northrop Grumman said “Hey what if we offer you a bigger, more fuel efficient aircraft”? Now Boeing is saying “We didn’t know we could do that” isn’t that the purpose of competitive bidding? More bang for the buck? And we stand to gain from a foreign contract as well. Such a large contract will lend toward stabilizing the Dollar against the Euro.
Boeing lobby expenditures in 2007 thus far total $4.14 million.[21] In 2006, total of $9.12 million was spent. Boeing is one of four major corporations which, after September 11, 2001, were accused[attribution needed] of pushing for “Star Wars” missile defense.[22][verification needed] These corporations had been making “a major political investment,” and receiving 60 percent of government missile defense contracts.[22]
i guess we could find the same info on Northrup
...before you stick your neck too far out defending Boeing.. ya need to visit this site and read a little of Boeing’s more recent history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing ... especially the Unethical Conduct and the industrial espionage convictions that pertain directly to this contract it’s just below the year 2000’s history ..
I wonder why Boeing didn’t offer the Air Force a 767-300ER instead of the shorter -200ER. The -300 has a longer fuselage which would definitely work to USAFֺs—and Boeing’s—advantage. The A330 figures to have more capacity than a -200, but would suffer if the -300 were offered.
Mind you, I once worked on 767s before the troubles on Boeing’s “Mahogany Row” sent two bigshots to jail on the previous 767 Tanker deal.
I loved my job there; my colleagues were, and are, the nicest, most talented people to be around, but I’m here to cry for Boeing.
If they never get another order for a 767, their backlog will keep the line open for Four More Years, at which time Boeing can free up the space for a second 787 line. That beauty already has 800-plus firm orders; likely as not, Boeing will still be making them when Halley’s Comet returns. Airbus, on the other hand, needs something after their Behemoth A380 ceases production at maybe 200 planes—if they are lucky.
Meantime, ¡Viva Mobile!
Mobile should keep this contract.Opposition is mainly based on the fact that Alabama is a right to work state.The hardheadedness of International Unions is why I.P.Co. left Mobile
This proves Boeing can’t do things out in the open. They have always paid for information to beat their compectors. Also one has to wonder how many of the congress men and women are on their payroll. Something just is not right.
Ther will be pay off under the table to keep the tanker contract here. That is win they need a wisel blower to help put the croked politation in jail for taking the bribe to keep his mouth shout. Bill
News Map
Email to a Friend 
Printer Friendly 
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT ALOT OF THESE CONGRESSMEN SUCH AS “NORM” WERE HOPING THAT BOIENG GOT THIS DEAL TO HELP LINE THEIR POCKETS,
i guess that little ole mobile al doesnt appear on the congressional map of the usa