Comments on: The Pentagon picks Airbus over Boeing; Northwest congressional delegation in an uproar; Update: “This won’t be pretty”

By: Hookecho

Hookecho — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:27:17 +0000

well after talking to people I know who work for Boeing military systems here in Wichita, it seems that the Air Force changed the RFP after Boeing made their submittal. According to my sources the Air Force wanted a tanker, but after Airbus submitted their proposal with the cargo component. Something that was not in the original RFP. This is why Boeing was forced to amend their proposal in Jan.

The Air Force changed the requirements very late in the game and it will be interesting to see how Congress reacts to the bait and switch and how much Airbus filled the campaign coffers of people from the states where the Airbus project will be built.

As for all those saying the plane was to be built in Washington and because its a blue state its good they lost….We in Kansas lost huge because even though the airframe was to be built in Seattle, the tanker conversion and all testing was to be done here in Kansas, you know where we are already doing the 767 tankers for Japan and Italy…

Not going to be pretty is right

By: Antaradus

Antaradus — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:56:36 +0000

This bid went out before the Euro has jumped against the dollar and I would love to know if the price is locked with US dollars or if the bid was in Euros and will end up costing a lot more now?

I think (although I could be mistaken) that when contracts such as this are signed, given that it is over a period of 10-15 years, there is generally some kind of clause that takes into account currency fluctations, so I don’t think that will be a problem.

As for the Airbus manufacturing delays, they were specifically for the A380 (wiring problems), and not linked to any other aircraft, so I reckon that risks of any major delays in construction of these tankers are negligeable.

By: emjem24

emjem24 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:35:11 +0000

I have no problem with Northrup Grumman and Airbus winning this contract. If they designed the better plane then they should receive the contract. Airbus has gotten lazy and hasn’t adapted to the changing needs of the military while Northrup Grumman has.

The Boeing scandal (the tanker lease debacle involving the Air Force) was a big deal a couple of years ago. There was a lot of graft involving not only their civilian contractors but their military counterparts. While the Air Force doesn’t always get it right, I think this time around they went for a plane that better suited their needs.

Let the lefties have a conniption fit. You can’t protest a local military contractor not getting a big contract at the same time that you’re making the miltary’s job more difficult. You can’t have it both ways. Oh, well….

By: pressto

pressto — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:05:47 +0000

What no one has mentioned yet? This bid went out before the Euro has jumped against the dollar and I would love to know if the price is locked with US dollars or if the bid was in Euros and will end up costing a lot more now?

By: jbirish

jbirish — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:26:20 +0000

I live not too far from the Everett Boeing complex north of Seattle. I’ve been reading the PI comments section on this flap and have laughed so hard the tears rolled. I’ve had to listen to the anti military, anti war, anti Bush rantings until for all these years. Protests from the war to environmental issues from these Socialist scum. Seattle is a twin of San Fransicko. Well, they have talked the talk, but are unable to walk the walk. All of a sudden they are outraged over the loss of this military contract and their chicken has come home to roost. Hats off to Alabama, and don’t give these morons up here any ideas about moving to your state. They’re a pox on society and believe me you’d be most sorry if they moved there.

By: vsatt

vsatt — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:32:56 +0000

And if we’re going to just sit around and absorb the empty pop culture around us, at least watch a few episodes of The Apprentice.

Rule # 1, if you don’t listen to the customer and give them what they want, you will lose and SOMEBODY WILL BE FIRED!

By: vsatt

vsatt — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:29:59 +0000

You want jobs to stay in America? Let’s raise a generation with a decent work ethic and stop dumbing down their education.

By: Ricco

Ricco — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:22:27 +0000

“A perfect question for Tuesday’s Dumb DEM debate (One that you, of course, won’t hear):

Do you think that the U.S. AIr Force giving a $35 billion tanker deal to the European company Airbus is bad for the American economy and outsourcing our national defense?”

By: Lurker

Lurker — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:03:45 +0000

While I feel we are all obviously indebted to Boeing for their spectacular performance in WW2, by all accounts Northrup simply designed a better plane. Having spent close to 12 years in the Seattle area, I know it will affect a lot of my friends who work at Boeing, but I agree that the needs of our military should come first. Boeing simply needs to be more competitive in the future.

By: whysoangry

whysoangry — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:40:23 +0000

They aren’t Boeing’s jobs. And has been offered above, they aren’t going to Europe.

By: zeestephen

zeestephen — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:28:21 +0000

The three women running Washington state – Gov. Gregoire, Sen. Murray, Sen. Cantwell – are relentless advocates for “open borders” immigration. All three agree that it’s just fine to import foreign labor to our state, which crushes wages and job opportunities for our least skilled citizens. But, it’s Bad, Bad, Bad to send Boeing’s jobs to Europe? Gimme a break.

By: Jim M.

Jim M. — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:47:23 +0000

On March 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pm, Oroso said:
I’d think if the military wanted the very best they would have specifically asked Boeing to use the KC-777.

The Military asked for a new tanker design. What they received from Boeing was a design based on the 767, not the 777. It was Boeing’s responsibility, not the US government’s, to modify their design if they thought the 777 was more consistent with the requirements they have had for years.

If it is indeed true that the use of the 777 airframe would have resulted in a takner that beat the Airbus, it is shame on Boeing, not shame on the military. And whining to the press does nothing to change the specs the Pentagon has in front of them for review. Boeing submitted the 767 for approval, not the 777.

In addition, it may have been exceedingly difficult for Boeing to use the 777 when it was trying to drum up civilian sales of the same aircraft. My undertstanding is that Boeing is already behind schedule on deliveries to the civilian sector, and it sounds likely that adding a military aircraft using the same airframe would have been impossible to deliver. Which is probably why Boeing stuck with the 767 design and never changed it. That, and it would allow them to have a captive customer for an aircraft no longer being made for anyone else, adding to their bottom line.

By: Oroso

Oroso — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:18:50 +0000

I’d think if the military wanted the very best they would have specifically asked Boeing to use the KC-777.

By: Tennessee Dave

Tennessee Dave — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:52:17 +0000

As a member of the military I will put this in perspective. As airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines, we are told that the military will do it’s best to:
1. station us where we want to be
2. let us do the job we want to do
But with one provision–The needs of the military come first.
This is just another area where the needs of the military come first. If the Northrup entry is the best choice, well……doesn’t our military deserve the best equipment it needs to do the job we are entrusted to do?

By: Ordinary Coloradan

Ordinary Coloradan — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:37:42 +0000

FYI,the breakdown is (roughly)

US 60%, Spain and Germany roughly 12% each, UK 10% and France 6%

And yes I dont mind foreign parts. I went to war with a German Rheinmetall 120mm gun (US Deisngnation M256) in the M1A1, and Chobham composite armor the Brits came up with, and it got us through combat quite well.