Tanker deal loss staggers Boeing

In a shocking move, the U.S. Air Force awarded a $35 billion contract to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers to a consortium led by a France-based defense contractor rather than Boeing Co. Full Story
First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Lone Ranger

Wabash, IN

#1 Mar 1, 2008
This is entirely the fault of mr. integrity of the Keating Five, John McCain. Congratulations m0r0n, you have just sent the profits of a 35-40 BILLION US military contracts to foreign investors, along with most of the manufacturing, increased our foreign trtade deficit, and again weakened the dollar. You represent all that is wrong with american political order.
Tonto

Seattle, WA

#2 Mar 1, 2008
According to Lone Ranger's convoluted thinking, one can argue that this is completely Mr. Obama's & Mr. Durbin's fault. Are they not supposed to 'bring home the bacon' to Chicago?

They are both politically weak in D.C., and this lack of strength could end up costing us $100B, and thousands of US jobs.

Oh yeah, I forgot, Mr. Obama=Mr. Integrity, and no more politics as usual.

Merci Beaucoup. What a maroon!
Phil UK Wokingham

Kidderminster, UK

#3 Mar 1, 2008
Boeing beaten on all counts unfortunately. Rest assured the USAF boffins have made the right choice as have the RAF, RAAF, UAE, Saudi Air forces all having rejected Boeings offering as not capable.

Make no mistake this will be an Airbus product with Northrop finishing off airframes and providing backup support a brilliant result for the US defence forces.
mbmom

Homer Glen, IL

#4 Mar 1, 2008
It's a sad day when the U.S. Air Force chooses to, in essence, outsource the production of air tankers. It's an even sadder day when a U.S. company can't compete.
NotMcCainsFault

Seattle, WA

#5 Mar 1, 2008
Fault your own senators, NOT McCain for this loss.
Tom

Auburn Hills, MI

#7 Mar 1, 2008
Would you like feedom fries with that order?
xnasa57

Country Club Hills, IL

#8 Mar 1, 2008
Tonto wrote:
....this is completely Mr. Obama's & Mr. Durbin's fault. Are they not supposed to 'bring home the bacon' to Chicago?
Boeing doesn't manufacture planes in Illinois. There are only about 400 Boeing employees in Chicago. That's not going to change no matter who was awarded the contract. It's the good people of Washington state that are out jobs because of this, not Illinois.
David Perry

Renton, WA

#9 Mar 1, 2008
The 767 and 330 are completely different airframes with the 330 being larger. If it is size the Air Force wants, the 777 airframe would have provided the services with even more capability.

You can bet that the Air Force specifically asked for the 767 airframe. Had they asked for more fuel/payload capability than the 767 can provide Boeing would have bid the job with the 777.

In these competitions it is generally understood that no extra credit be given for capability beyond that which is specified in the requirements document. In this case it appears that "extra credit" was awarded.

Come on people. How can an airframe built in Europe with very high labor rates be competitive with one built in the US? Government subsidies thats how.

So now we have France, Germany, and the UK subsidizing the US military. The price America pays for the favor is paid in the currency of the middle class worker.

One final note. I'll bet a nickel that cost overruns will total at least 25% of the project. That's how Northrop operates - they were prime on the B-2 - remember how that one turned out?
Steve

Saint Louis, MO

#10 Mar 1, 2008
Dave:

Spot on with your comments, I thought the same thing relative to the 'more' statements. I would bet the 'more' factor was not factored in as risk on their cost proposal. I know the USAF will be on the attack and call this a 'wafighter imperative', but the B-52 is still their bomber workhorse. I have a feeling this one will unravel in the same fashion the orginal tanker deal did. USAF AQ will not be right until they completely overhaul their people and their processes.
Jacques of France

Mission Viejo, CA

#11 Mar 1, 2008
Thank you John McCain!

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

#12 Mar 1, 2008
The really sad news is that Boeing let socialist bedwetters in France produce a better airplane than they were capable of making.

Aircraft are one of the last things we have been proud to say are still made in this country.

And now even that is in jeopardy.
GI Joe

San Rafael, CA

#13 Mar 1, 2008
Come on guys, if the Airbus is better and cheaper, let's just take the Airbus. Period.
The fact that the money is going for 50% to EADS is not worse than than to see it going to Boeing CEOs pocket...
And give me a break with the unpatriotic side of that deal... It's just bull...
I am glad we got the best planes.
R J B

United States

#14 Mar 1, 2008
This is an example of how deeply compromised our America is to award our tax money and jobs to a FORIEGN country. Will the French Military spend over 100 BILLION on us? You can bet that we'll all be speaking Chineese in the next 50 years ...
Hellcat

AOL

#15 Mar 1, 2008
A lot of people out there do not have a clue how defense spending works. Our best customers are Israel
and the UAE. All the major defense contracters are in bed with one another. Ther will be thousands of
skilled jobs created in Illinois alone
by the tanker plane. Everybody wins!!
Boeing and NGC are both excellent companies!!!
Marks

United States

#16 Mar 1, 2008
Crimes happened is why John McCain got involved.

Competition is good in all things. This forces Boeing to be more flexible in their plans, next time.

Saying 777 easily could be offered can't be true or they would have done it. They have "desperation" to sell the 767.

It doesn't help when politicians shame the competition, THEY can't build a tanker, THEY haven't ever built a tanker.

That's too much ego by politicians. They can build tanker, they haven't done it yet.

We are arguing CHANGE right now in a lot of industries. Change the way plans are offered, be more flexible in the application idea, treat the customer better and listen to them.

The Air Force thinks Northrup has a better idea. It's a different way to build the KC-X.

Left to decide with two plans, Air Force picked what they think is a BETTER RELATIONSHIP for this project.

It's a more personal decision than engineering specifics.

The 330 is a more modern airframe, while the 767 has an ending date in a few years.

It will be different than dealing with Boeing.

America didn't have the jobs, still has to be creative trying to replace them.

In my mind, government has to tell the car manufactures, no more. No more gasoline and oil based engines by 2012.

Force industry to change the way they create these machines.

Boeing was told to change.
Mits

Raleigh, NC

#17 Mar 1, 2008
I'm happy that Boeing got slapped since they actually won the contract several years ago by lying, bribing and fraud and then got caught. The 767 is a old relic and can not compete against the A330's technology. The A330 is going to have parts made in Britain (US ally), Germany (US ally), France (US ally) and assembled in Alabama (1000's of new jobs). The European's have bought hundred's of billions of dollars worth of US military goods and if they took the same narrow minded and chauvanistic views like some people on this blog then Boeing would be worse off.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

#18 Mar 1, 2008
GI Joe wrote:
Come on guys, if the Airbus is better and cheaper, let's just take the Airbus. Period.
We should care about Boeing for the same reason that the Euro's care about Airbus.

It means jobs in this country instead of there, and support for our high tech industry instead of theirs.
Lone Ranger

Wabash, IN

#19 Mar 1, 2008
Tonto wrote:
According to Lone Ranger's convoluted thinking, one can argue that this is completely Mr. Obama's & Mr. Durbin's fault. Are they not supposed to 'bring home the bacon' to Chicago?
They are both politically weak in D.C., and this lack of strength could end up costing us $100B, and thousands of US jobs.
Oh yeah, I forgot, Mr. Obama=Mr. Integrity, and no more politics as usual.
Merci Beaucoup. What a maroon!
Me a marron as you say? look up the literal translation of TONTO - it is a very appropriate name for you.
Lone Ranger

Wabash, IN

#20 Mar 1, 2008
GI Joe wrote:
I am glad we got the best planes.
We didn't necessarily get the best, we got the cheapest!- and the cost upon the American economy will be much greater. McPain sucks
Lynne

Laguna Niguel, CA

#21 Mar 1, 2008
American tax dollars should not be used to create employment in Europe when we have the capability to produce this product in our country. $100 BILLION DOLLARS will be spent on this deal. There is clearly a long term impact of this decision. We need to keep the jobs and technology here with the people who worked hard pay their taxes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Larsen Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Opponents of voter ID laws see time to fight ru... Aug '14 Uber-Bro of the U... 61
U.S. lawmakers to question oil-by-rail safety; ... (Feb '14) Feb '14 Le Jimbo 24
Federal officials want more oversight of refine... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Cat74 2
Wash. leaders press for union vote on Boeing offer (Dec '13) Jan '14 mjjcpa 4
APNewsBreak: US envoy to travel to NKorea (Aug '13) Sep '13 Rabbie Shalomo Je... 3
FAA approves Boeing Dreamliner battery system d... (Apr '13) Apr '13 fatbacksx 5
Here's how automatic cuts would hurt Washington (Feb '13) Feb '13 mom from ohio 1

Rick Larsen People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE