NationStates Jolt Archive

EADS the parent company of Airbus has won a contract worth $35 billion to build tankers to replace the aging US Air Force KC-135 fleet.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1086554&pagina_chiamante=corpo%3Dindex.php
A lot of people felt that Boeing would win the contract as they have built all the tankers, except for the KC-10, for the Air Force.
The Airbus aircraft is larger than the Boeing aircraft, can haul more fuel, and be used in a tanker, cargo, or passenger configuration. It also costs more.
Airbus also said they will build the aircraft in Mobile, Alabama bringing thousands of high paying jobs to that area.
French workers see the tanker contract as a threat to their jobs because the aircraft will be built in the US and not Europe. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080303/BLOG01/171522022/0/BIZ
One reason why Airbus is going to built the tankers in the US was to win the contract but another is the decline of the dollar against the Euro so it is now less expensive to build the aircraft in the US than Europe.
Some Congressmen are upset. The US military having an aircraft (or should I say $35 billion dollars of aircraft) built by a FOREIGN company.
OK, so what US car owner can call a Toyota a foreign car?

So, what do you think? Should the contract go to Boeing?

If Boeing wants military contracts, then they should stop engineering stupid planes like they did for the F-35.

Boeing wanted more money for less airplane. Fuck em.

EADS the parent company of Airbus has won a contract worth $35 billion to build tankers to replace the aging US Air Force KC-135 fleet.

So, what do you think? Should the contract go to Boeing?

I predict that Boeing will win their appeal, boosted by election year politiking. The program will be re-bid and they will bid the right airplane.

If Boeing wants military contracts, then they should stop engineering stupid planes like they did for the F-35.

What are you talking about? :confused:

Airbus, hands down. The capabilities of the proposed plane are sufficiently superior as to be worth the price, no questions asked.

Oh, and the industrial politics of locating the plant at Mobile don't hurt at all, either.

What are you talking about? :confused:

I'm sure he hasn't a clue. Boeing might not be hands at building fighters, but they sure can build tankers. I think the 767 would have been a great option.

What are you talking about? :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

The military was never going to accept it.

Boeing wanted more money for less airplane. Fuck em.

No they didn't LG. They wanted less money for a less capable aircraft. The Air Force went for an aircraft that could be used as a tanker, cargo, or passenger aircraft. What Boeing offered was an aircraft more like the KC-135 and Airbus offered an aircraft more like the KC-10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

The military was never going to accept it.

:mad:X-32 is not a tanker. Stay on subject please.

No they didn't LG. They wanted less money for a less capable aircraft. The Air Force went for an aircraft that could be used as a tanker, cargo, or passenger aircraft. What Boeing offered was an aircraft more like the KC-135 and Airbus offered an aircraft more like the KC-10.
AKA the Airforce went for another plane that will take a decade to come to fruition and run over a shitload of money because they want a plane that does everything for everyone.

I predict that Boeing will win their appeal, boosted by election year politiking. The program will be re-bid and they will bid the right airplane.

I'll bet a dozen cookies and a quart of milk Boeing looses the appeal. Deal?

AKA the Airforce went for another plane that will take a decade to come to fruition and run over a shitload of money because they want a plane that does everything for everyone.
But that's the way military procurement works. I have an appropriate anecdote about how a particular program was doomed to fail by the process, but no one ever seems interested in them.

EADS the parent company of Airbus has won a contract worth $35 billion to build tankers to replace the aging US Air Force KC-135 fleet.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1086554&pagina_chiamante=corpo%3Dindex.php
A lot of people felt that Boeing would win the contract as they have built all the tankers, except for the KC-10, for the Air Force.
The Airbus aircraft is larger than the Boeing aircraft, can haul more fuel, and be used in a tanker, cargo, or passenger configuration. It also costs more.
Airbus also said they will build the aircraft in Mobile, Alabama bringing thousands of high paying jobs to that area.
French workers see the tanker contract as a threat to their jobs because the aircraft will be built in the US and not Europe. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080303/BLOG01/171522022/0/BIZ
One reason why Airbus is going to built the tankers in the US was to win the contract but another is the decline of the dollar against the Euro so it is now less expensive to build the aircraft in the US than Europe.
Some Congressmen are upset. The US military having an aircraft (or should I say $35 billion dollars of aircraft) built by a FOREIGN company.
OK, so what US car owner can call a Toyota a foreign car?

So, what do you think? Should the contract go to Boeing?

As long as the Airbus plane has a better cost/cargo capacity than the Boeing offering, and if Airbus can provide an overall better plane than Boeing, then Airbus should get the contract. It's the same thing with weapons manufacturers. I doubt many people complain about the fact that the US military uses H&K, FNH, or Beretta weapons, even though those are foreign based companies.

IMO, the US military needs the best weapon/vehicle it can get for the money, regardless of who makes it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

The military was never going to accept it.

Quit trolling the thread.

I'll bet a dozen cookies and a quart of milk Boeing looses the appeal. Deal?
Considering that we're talking about cyber-cookies and bit-buckets of milk, you're on.

As long as the Airbus plane has a better cost/cargo capacity than the Boeing offering, and if Airbus can provide an overall better plane than Boeing, then Airbus should get the contract. It's the same thing with weapons manufacturers. I doubt many people complain about the fact that the US military uses H&K, FNH, or Beretta weapons, even though those are foreign based companies.

IMO, the US military needs the best weapon/vehicle it can get for the money, regardless of who makes it.
But don't we build those weapons under a license from the company? We did that with Harriers when they were first introduced. It's a little different to have the entire airplane built by a foreign 'government'.

AKA the Airforce went for another plane that will take a decade to come to fruition and run over a shitload of money because they want a plane that does everything for everyone.

No. Airbus has built the prototype and proven the concept. Boeing has also built the aircraft for a foreign military (Japan) and proven the concept but over a year late. :(

But don't we build those weapons under a license from the company? We did that with Harriers when they were first introduced. It's a little different to have the entire airplane built by a foreign 'government'.

I believe the weapons are manufactured by subsidiary companies to the parent company, in the US.

But that's the way military procurement works. I have an appropriate anecdote about how a particular program was doomed to fail by the process, but no one ever seems interested in them.

Don't forget that half of the stuff the military does, such as the SAGE project, will not be able to pan out, but the consequences are of a significant value. Without SAGE, for instance, some of the basic concepts of networking, and the basic structure of the internet would never have been developed.

AKA the Airforce went for another plane that will take a decade to come to fruition and run over a shitload of money because they want a plane that does everything for everyone.

Oh, ask OZ how long it will take to come to fruition. :rolleyes:http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/A330-200MRTT%20Tanker.htm

Oh, ask OZ how long it will take to come to fruition. :rolleyes:http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/A330-200MRTT%20Tanker.htm
Ya know, it seems a little smaller than the KC-10. The first time I ever rode in one was on a Trans Pac back from the Far East. They have a weight readout by the Flight Engineer's station and I remember seeing something like 800,000# on the ramp at Clark. The A-330 lists its max takeoff weight as 240,000 kg. That's only about 600,000#, isn't it?

I know that doesn't match what the fact sheets say about the KC-10, but it impressed me so much that we were almost at a million pounds that I don't think I'd forget it soon. Maybe there were some extended range versions operating?

EADS the parent company of Airbus has won a contract worth $35 billion to build tankers to replace the aging US Air Force KC-135 fleet.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1086554&pagina_chiamante=corpo%3Dindex.php
A lot of people felt that Boeing would win the contract as they have built all the tankers, except for the KC-10, for the Air Force.
The Airbus aircraft is larger than the Boeing aircraft, can haul more fuel, and be used in a tanker, cargo, or passenger configuration. It also costs more.
Airbus also said they will build the aircraft in Mobile, Alabama bringing thousands of high paying jobs to that area.
French workers see the tanker contract as a threat to their jobs because the aircraft will be built in the US and not Europe. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080303/BLOG01/171522022/0/BIZ
One reason why Airbus is going to built the tankers in the US was to win the contract but another is the decline of the dollar against the Euro so it is now less expensive to build the aircraft in the US than Europe.
Some Congressmen are upset. The US military having an aircraft (or should I say $35 billion dollars of aircraft) built by a FOREIGN company.
OK, so what US car owner can call a Toyota a foreign car?

So, what do you think? Should the contract go to Boeing?

Airbus will make the superior aircraft, and is bringing jobs to the U.S. to boot. I'm not seeing why Boeing deserves it other than some misplaced patriotism.

Provided the final product is built in the US, by US workers, I don't care who owns the company, build it in Kansas or Alabama, it doesn't matter. But the second that concession falters though, and the US military is told accept products from overseas manufacturers, I'm going to starting looking to see which congresspeople need to be thrown out on their ears, maybe even BEFORE the next election...

Quit trolling the thread.
they post once, you quote it twice and it's trolling wft



oh yur Boeing had it's time,time to try someone new

Airbus simply had a better deal than Boeing offered.

If Boeing had perhaps designed a 787 tanker they could have won. The 767 is just not as well suited for this.

If Airbus offered the better plane, then it should get the contract. I don't think there is any need to worry about Airbus being 'foreign'; it's not as if it's going to be the first step in a European invasion of the US.

This will undoubtedly be a kick up the backside for Boeing, so next time they will offer a better aircraft. And there will be a next time; it's one thing to buy an inferior product in order to support a national defence industry if that industry will disappear unless you do, but quite another when the company is as strong as Boeing.

So, what do you think? Should the contract go to Boeing?Your post is a bit inaccurate. It's not really being built in Alabama, but most of it is being assembled there. A lot of parts are being built in Europe.

I hope this isn't another of those imperial/metric mix ups.

zilly Americans, Zeppelins are clearly ze way of zu future

Provided the final product is built in the US, by US workers, I don't care who owns the company, build it in Kansas or Alabama, it doesn't matter. But the second that concession falters though, and the US military is told accept products from overseas manufacturers, I'm going to starting looking to see which congresspeople need to be thrown out on their ears, maybe even BEFORE the next election...

have you seen American workmanship?! :p

zilly Americans, Zeppelins are clearly ze way of zu futureHardly. They were out of fashion as soon as the blimp came along.

zilly Americans, Zeppelins are clearly ze way of zu future



have you seen American workmanship?! :p

At least we can't lay claim to Lucas Electric... The "Prince of Darkness"

The Lucas Electric motto: "Get home before dark."
Lucas--inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.

And on and on...

Message to Boeing: Ha Ha! Guess they can't bribe everyone.

Some slight clarifications are needed.

It was the US airforce that decided to have the airbus based tanker after the bidding process got dumped in 2004 when they found out Boeing was paying the guys who decide what tanker aircraft to buy.... oops several exec's and Boeing's ceo got booted out for that one.

Another thing to consider when you hear about congress critters whining on about US planes built for the US military by US people is that you can be damn sure those airbus planes will have US engines on them, and how much other stuff used in the US military is built in partnership with foreign countries eg the F-35 for example


El-presidente Boris

Mind you Boeing would have 'outsourced' those tankers to their foreign partners anyway with only the final assembly happening in the US :rolleyes:

As long as the Airbus plane has a better cost/cargo capacity than the Boeing offering, and if Airbus can provide an overall better plane than Boeing, then Airbus should get the contract. It's the same thing with weapons manufacturers. I doubt many people complain about the fact that the US military uses H&K, FNH, or Beretta weapons, even though those are foreign based companies.

IMO, the US military needs the best weapon/vehicle it can get for the money, regardless of who makes it.

and based on that,the American companies should learn to build the best product for the best value.
They are certainly capable.

Could someone please Sabotage it to disrupt their activities against the Civilised World.

IMO, the US military needs the best weapon/vehicle it can get for the money, regardless of who makes it.I disagree here. It would be best if "who makes it" isn't the same person the US will likely have to engage militarily. Luckily, Western Europe isn't on that list.

airbus was able to create a better product then go with airbus. It is kind of stupid to stick with the same company if they are failing to keep up with others.

airbus was able to create a better product then go with airbus. It is kind of stupid to stick with the same company if they are failing to keep up with others.
Isn't that the whole point of a "Free Market System?"

Best product wins?

Nice to see that SOME of the government doesn't believe in Corporate Welfare.

Besides Boeing has backstabbed this country way too many times.

Oh, and the industrial politics of locating the plant at Mobile don't hurt at all, either.

I don't think that should have anything to do with the decision considering that Boeing is a US owned and operated company. Good for Airbus that they are considering building the new plant, but in the long run it shouldn't influence the governments decision that much.

I don't think Airbus won the contract because their product was better. I think the US government was going to catch hell for choosing Boeing after the last attempt to award this contract revealed that Boeing had exercised undue and unfair influence over the decision.

I guess Boeing deserved the snub for trying to cheat earlier, but damn, I'm from Seattle, and nothing keeps the economy humming up there like good news for Boeing...tax breaks for Boeing...subsidized road construction for Boeing...building a dock and a dedicated rail line tax free for Boeing...and so forth.

haha, european aerospace industry pwns that of the us.

Competitive bidding. Boeing has won over Airbus in the past because it was the better competitor, and now it's the other way around. I don't think it matters as long as the superior product is delivered.

I don't think Airbus won the contract because their product was better. I think the US government was going to catch hell for choosing Boeing after the last attempt to award this contract revealed that Boeing had exercised undue and unfair influence over the decision.

I guess Boeing deserved the snub for trying to cheat earlier, but damn, I'm from Seattle, and nothing keeps the economy humming up there like good news for Boeing...tax breaks for Boeing...subsidized road construction for Boeing...building a dock and a dedicated rail line tax free for Boeing...and so forth.

You also remember the Boeing HQ move to Chicago. This isn't the 70's here in Seattle anymore. The old billboard saying. Whoever is the last to leave turn out the lights. Luckily we are diversified enough to absorb a sagging airplane builder. Intangelon what area do you live in? I am originally from Kirkland and moved the family there this year.

haha, european aerospace industry pwns that of the us.

I wouldn't gloat to much. Boeing can be stung but not kept down. Also when you want Air Superiority look to American aerospace.

Competitive bidding. Boeing has won over Airbus in the past because it was the better competitor, and now it's the other way around. I don't think it matters as long as the superior product is delivered.
I don't think that the lowest bidder that meets all specs is providing the superior product. There are enough other factors that need to be considered, but can't be written into a contract. Company reputation is a big one. How have they treated the customer after delivery? Do they work to resolve problems or do they just deliver to the terms of the contract and nothing more?

Even technical specs can be misleading. Bidders may all meet specs, but some will provide far in excess of a spec at a minimal cost increase.

Um, people are aware that the contract didn't go solely to Airbus, but to EADS (technically Airbus) and Northrop Grumman, yes?

Um, people are aware that the contract didn't go solely to Airbus, but to EADS (technically Airbus) and Northrop Grumman, yes?
Without digging too deeply into the teaming, I suspect that N-G has selected EADS as the supplier of an airframe to meet the KC-X requirements. N-G will be the supplier to the USAF and will provide the extra stuff that the contract requires, typically far more than just an airplane.

You also remember the Boeing HQ move to Chicago. This isn't the 70's here in Seattle anymore. The old billboard saying. Whoever is the last to leave turn out the lights. Luckily we are diversified enough to absorb a sagging airplane builder. Intangelon what area do you live in? I am originally from Kirkland and moved the family there this year.

When I'm not an academic in North Dakota, I live in Everett. Literally about a mile away from the 747, world's-largest-building-by-volume plant. And hold the jokes, I love my hometown, warts and all (preemptive defensiveness -- the Eastside is usually the second to start with Everett jokes, right after Seattle itself).

I am old enough (37) to remember the billboard, too. My family was moving into town when that sign was up...I was eight years old, so I didn't quite understand, but thankfully, my father had gotten a job with GTE (way before "Verizon", whatever the fuck that is) right when data services and other computer-related tech stuff was taking off.

I suppose your right about diversification (Microsoft, biotech, Starbucks, and so forth), and it's a good thing, but I'm still a bit conditioned to remember that bad news for Boeing is bad news for my home region. The more Boeing needs blue collar workers, the better. Otherwise we'll wind up with a white collar workforce and jobs for those without bachelor's degrees won't be in manufacturing, but service industries. Inevitable, I suppose.

[QUOTE]Some Congressmen are upset. The US military having an aircraft (or should I say $35 billion dollars of aircraft) built by a FOREIGN company.
The canadian, british, italian, german, turkish, belgian, dutch, danish, spanish, czech, polish, greek military have aircrafts built by FOREIGN companies, too. Guess what, they're all in the NATO.

Btw, the US military ALREADY employed foreign aircrafts. What they call the C-27 "Spartan" is the FIAT/Alenia G.222 . Also, the Harrier isn't exactly a US design.

Do you claim that FOREIGN aircrafts are shit just because they're FOREIGN?

So, what do you think? Should the contract go to Boeing?
It depends.
If you support free trade, no.
If you don't support free trade, yes.


...to sum it up, all your tanker are belong to us.

...to sum it up, all your tanker are belong to us.
I was just about to say 'All your military are belong to Toulouse', but this'll do.:)

I was just about to say 'All your military are belong to Toulouse', but this'll do.:)

lol