WTF: EADS/Northrop trumps Boeing

[Yurt]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251273_webtankerwin29.html

EADS/Northrop trumps Boeing in Air Force tanker competition

Boeing has lost the long-awaited and lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract to a competing bid based on an Airbus airplane, Air Force officials said Friday.

The newly named KC-45A plane will be produced by a partnership between Europe's EADS and Northrop Grumman, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said.

The outcome is a shocking upset, kept secret until just before the formal announcement today.

The Boeing loss means that the 767 assembly line in Everett will wind to a close around 2012 when the current commercial orders run out.

No layoffs are likely as workers will transfer to other programs. But Washington State has lost out on the chance to add as many as 9,000 jobs.

Until now, Boeing has had a monopoly on the supply of large air tankers to the U.S. military. But Northrop Grumman, in partnership with Airbus parent EADS, will build the next generation tankers using a modified Airbus A330 instead of the Everett-built 767 Boeing had put forward.

--------------------------------------

How is it an "american" company partnered [legal ramifications +] with an overseas company gets a contract to build united states of america military airplanes? granted, the airplanes are not super high tech or top secret, however, how is it that we are now reliant on a foreign "partnership" [btw -- when a corporation becomes a partner, its not like you and i becoming partners, corps are not partnerships] for our re-fuelers?

As the article also points out, this will probably lose 9000 american jobs

[LiberalNation]

Kinda bull. They will prolly make the planes cheaper but still this hurts America more than will be gained considering how many jobs it will lose.

[hjmick]

Well that sucks. It could have meant huge $$$ for the company I work for.

[LiberalNation]

Well it's not all bad news. Alabama will get about 7000 new jobs out of it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080301/pl_nm/usa_airforce_tanker_congress_dc;_ylt=Am6TYsbuFegFz cAIOa00QgJ34T0D

Lawmakers from Alabama, where Northrop and EADS plan to do some tanker work, were effusive in praising the Air Force.

"I thought all along that the Northrop Grumman-EADS proposal was the best," Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, told reporters. He said the contract would bring nearly 7,000 jobs to the state.

[Sitarro]

This email shows just what kind of crap was going on when the initial needs came out in 2000. This is one correspondence is one of many from a site that goes into the years of bullshit that is involved with making a decision for the guys in our military.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2004/s112004.html


From: James Roche
To: Pete Aldridge
CC: Gen. John Jumper; Marvin Sambur; Bill Bodie
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: 767 Lease

Pete, old Buddy, you have been our strongest supporter on
the issue of the lease. I now hear that your staff is telling
us that you are weakening. Please don't. Here is some food
for thought:
(1) Regardless of OMB, the deal is a good one for the
taxpayer.
(2) Every time we come forward with something good for the
taxpayer, the bureaucrats (including yours) feel that they
have to fight it (job security?)
(3) To delay for two years to do an AOA is simply silly. It
just means two more years of wasted repair costs on the E
models; a waste of taxpayers' money to some beltway bandit;
more bureaucratic delays by PA&E; and an end which is
predictable.
(4) Since neither ships, trucks, or tiny planes can serve
as tankers, we will be looking at big planes. Guess what?
We're already there. We will waste money and have nothing
to show for it.
(5) Hey, we can extend the life of the E's and re-engine
them! We'll that doesn't pass Grant's lieutenant's test: it
means we will be flying 80 year old planes in a few years!!!!
Average age is now between 42 and 44 years. Re-engining won't
solve the inherent catalytic corrosion problem. More waste of
money.
(6) Gee, why didn't we for 50 or 60 or 70 year old Air
Force Ones? How many of our bureaucrats fly in such old
planes? I'm getting used to some in their late 40s, but I'm
not so picky! But, why don't we make the Navy sail 60 year
old destroyers? Or submarines? Because it's dumb.
(7) If we wait, there may not be a 767 line! Hey, can we
covert used ones. Here we go again. We can waste money with
half measurers that are penny wise and pound foolish. Why not
do the same for ships? OK, so we'll be forced to buy French
airplanes.
(8) To kill this idea in OSD is proof that there may be
words like ``acquisition reform,'' but they are hollow. The
bureaucrats want to keep doing things the same old way,
adding little value but lots of costs.
I can only keep my sanity by remembering Andy's advice to
me years ago: ``there are limits to the stupidity any one man
can prevent.'' Off to Okinawa! Jim.
Dr. James G. Roche,
Secretary of the Air Force.



Yes there was some back scratching here and there but that is pretty much how business gets done. Guess who was in the middle of screwing up the arrangement that went back to 2000 for Boeing to lease and eventually sell 767s to the Air Force for tankers......Maverick McCain.

What was originally a deal for under 24 billion to get the Air Force aircraft in a very quick way through Boeing is now over 30 billion going to a European company to build shit Airbuses for our Air Force. This is what happens when you let politicians get involved with business decisions. Oh and sure, there aren't any shinanigans going on with Airbus, no way:laugh2:, what a joke. Countries own Airbus and our private firms are suppose to compete with that. This is a royal fuck up........Thanks McCain.:fu:

The real cost is much higher because the refitting of 40 year old 707s with new engines so we have something in the air while waiting for all this shit to get settled would have probably paid for the new aircraft!

[badger]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251273_webtankerwin29.html

EADS/Northrop trumps Boeing in Air Force tanker competition

Boeing has lost the long-awaited and lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract to a competing bid based on an Airbus airplane, Air Force officials said Friday.

The newly named KC-45A plane will be produced by a partnership between Europe's EADS and Northrop Grumman, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said.

The outcome is a shocking upset, kept secret until just before the formal announcement today.

The Boeing loss means that the 767 assembly line in Everett will wind to a close around 2012 when the current commercial orders run out.

No layoffs are likely as workers will transfer to other programs. But Washington State has lost out on the chance to add as many as 9,000 jobs.

Until now, Boeing has had a monopoly on the supply of large air tankers to the U.S. military. But Northrop Grumman, in partnership with Airbus parent EADS, will build the next generation tankers using a modified Airbus A330 instead of the Everett-built 767 Boeing had put forward.

--------------------------------------

How is it an "american" company partnered [legal ramifications +] with an overseas company gets a contract to build united states of america military airplanes? granted, the airplanes are not super high tech or top secret, however, how is it that we are now reliant on a foreign "partnership" [btw -- when a corporation becomes a partner, its not like you and i becoming partners, corps are not partnerships] for our re-fuelers?

As the article also points out, this will probably lose 9000 american jobsThis is an outrage. Like we would have had a prayer getting an analogous order out of the Euros. $40 billion US dollars in a recession going to support Euro jobs! Unbelievable. Northrup claims 25,000 US jobs from the order. Whereas Boeing's airplane would have provided 44,000 jobs. This according to MSNBC this morning. Moreover, they reported that US jobs were said by the Pentagon to NOT be a factor in the order. The Pentagon Euros that decided in favor of this should be canned. It is so thoughtful of the Pentagon to help support and build the Euro aerospece industry at the expense of America's. What the hell were they thinking? I hope it is overturned in Congress.

[Yurt]

Dicks, noting that Boeing was given a sole-source contract to build the tanker in 2003, said, "The worst part is that we won this once" when the Air Force signed off on an agreement to buy 80 Boeing 767 tankers and lease 20. Dicks was one of that original tanker deal's proponents in late 2001.

It was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who first questioned whether Boeing had received favoritism in that deal. Under fire from McCain, the Pentagon rescinded it in 2004.
The new competition was intended to be apolitical, but it has become a highly politicized bidding war amid debate over the involvement of EADS and Airbus.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004253027_tankerpolitics01.html

[Yurt]

US lawmakers blast Boeing defense contract snub

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers have reacted angrily after the US military awarded a 35-billion-dollar aircraft deal to Europe's Northrop Grumman/EADS group, in a major blow to US manufacturers Boeing.

"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon's decision.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/useuropemilitary;_ylt=AvcF76HL8wUrz8Yp7Lh94GEDW7oF


but i'm sure mccain is all for the deal

[Yurt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_air_force_tankers;_ylt=Alk6juV6Hrjb832Z9aZr UBkEtbAF

WASHINGTON - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.

But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.

[NATO AIR]

Some points to remember:

1) McCain exposed the corruption behind the initial deal, which involved a bevy of pay-offs, current DOD employees hooking Boeing up in exchange for future employment with Boeing and a less than open bidding process. Boeing's CEO rightly resigned and people went to jail because they were scheming to defraud the taxpayers of several billion dollars as well as breaking serious federal laws.

What exactly did he do wrong there? Is he supposed to just let a corrupt corporation defraud the American taxpayer simply because they're an American corporation?

2) The Air Force shared their evals of both planes with defense industry analysts and reporters and their judgment was shared by most of these people as well as people in the know at DOD. Boeing simply did not build the better plane. We're supposed to care about the best quality at a reasonable price. Boeing was offering a lower quality product at a higher price. We can' afford that in a time of war.

3) The US military already extensively uses foreign parts and equipment, from some of our individual weapons to key components in our missile defense program, fighter aircraft and our radar systems. This is no betrayal of America by the Air Force or anyone else, anyone spouting that is ignorant of both the military and defense procurement procedures. Btw, if the Navy doesn't get its shipbuilders into the realm of reality, we'll be buying Danish destroyers in another 5-6 years because they offer more firepower and technology at a better price than the crap being put out by America's shipbuilders.

4) Most important of all... 9,000 jobs were not lost.. 9,000 employees are not going to be laid off in Everett (where I spent all of last year living as a member of the USS Abraham Lincoln)... that was 9,000 potential new jobs. Meanwhile, a smaller number of jobs will be added in Alabama.

5) Lastly, the Boeing folks need to grow up, take this as a lesson learned and simply build a better product that can compete with competition. That's essentially what they did with the Dreamliner project, after several years of taking it on the chin from Airbus, they went back to the drawing board and revised the hell out of the Dreamliner project to make it "simply the best".

Americans shouldn't whine when they get bested by foreign competition. They should take that as motivation to innovate. That's why the Chevy Malibu is the car of the year, not some Japanese or European model this year. GM got tired of its ass getting kicked and made a superior product.

[theHawk]

Some points to remember:

1) McCain exposed the corruption behind the initial deal, which involved a bevy of pay-offs, current DOD employees hooking Boeing up in exchange for future employment with Boeing and a less than open bidding process. Boeing's CEO rightly resigned and people went to jail because they were scheming to defraud the taxpayers of several billion dollars as well as breaking serious federal laws.

What exactly did he do wrong there? Is he supposed to just let a corrupt corporation defraud the American taxpayer simply because they're an American corporation?

2) The Air Force shared their evals of both planes with defense industry analysts and reporters and their judgment was shared by most of these people as well as people in the know at DOD. Boeing simply did not build the better plane. We're supposed to care about the best quality at a reasonable price. Boeing was offering a lower quality product at a higher price. We can' afford that in a time of war.

3) The US military already extensively uses foreign parts and equipment, from some of our individual weapons to key components in our missile defense program, fighter aircraft and our radar systems. This is no betrayal of America by the Air Force or anyone else, anyone spouting that is ignorant of both the military and defense procurement procedures. Btw, if the Navy doesn't get its shipbuilders into the realm of reality, we'll be buying Danish destroyers in another 5-6 years because they offer more firepower and technology at a better price than the crap being put out by America's shipbuilders.

4) Most important of all... 9,000 jobs were not lost.. 9,000 employees are not going to be laid off in Everett (where I spent all of last year living as a member of the USS Abraham Lincoln)... that was 9,000 potential new jobs. Meanwhile, a smaller number of jobs will be added in Alabama.

5) Lastly, the Boeing folks need to grow up, take this as a lesson learned and simply build a better product that can compete with competition. That's essentially what they did with the Dreamliner project, after several years of taking it on the chin from Airbus, they went back to the drawing board and revised the hell out of the Dreamliner project to make it "simply the best".

Americans shouldn't whine when they get bested by foreign competition. They should take that as motivation to innovate. That's why the Chevy Malibu is the car of the year, not some Japanese or European model this year. GM got tired of its ass getting kicked and made a superior product.

Agreed. I think people are blowing his way out of proportion. This is just one aircraft in the airforce, there are plenty others that will need to be built. Its not like Boeing is going to go belly up, they are helping to build the F-22 fleet. This is really just a drop in the bucket for military aircaft.

[Pale Rider]

Some points to remember:

1) McCain exposed the corruption behind the initial deal, which involved a bevy of pay-offs, current DOD employees hooking Boeing up in exchange for future employment with Boeing and a less than open bidding process. Boeing's CEO rightly resigned and people went to jail because they were scheming to defraud the taxpayers of several billion dollars as well as breaking serious federal laws.

What exactly did he do wrong there? Is he supposed to just let a corrupt corporation defraud the American taxpayer simply because they're an American corporation?

2) The Air Force shared their evals of both planes with defense industry analysts and reporters and their judgment was shared by most of these people as well as people in the know at DOD. Boeing simply did not build the better plane. We're supposed to care about the best quality at a reasonable price. Boeing was offering a lower quality product at a higher price. We can' afford that in a time of war.

3) The US military already extensively uses foreign parts and equipment, from some of our individual weapons to key components in our missile defense program, fighter aircraft and our radar systems. This is no betrayal of America by the Air Force or anyone else, anyone spouting that is ignorant of both the military and defense procurement procedures. Btw, if the Navy doesn't get its shipbuilders into the realm of reality, we'll be buying Danish destroyers in another 5-6 years because they offer more firepower and technology at a better price than the crap being put out by America's shipbuilders.

4) Most important of all... 9,000 jobs were not lost.. 9,000 employees are not going to be laid off in Everett (where I spent all of last year living as a member of the USS Abraham Lincoln)... that was 9,000 potential new jobs. Meanwhile, a smaller number of jobs will be added in Alabama.

5) Lastly, the Boeing folks need to grow up, take this as a lesson learned and simply build a better product that can compete with competition. That's essentially what they did with the Dreamliner project, after several years of taking it on the chin from Airbus, they went back to the drawing board and revised the hell out of the Dreamliner project to make it "simply the best".

Americans shouldn't whine when they get bested by foreign competition. They should take that as motivation to innovate. That's why the Chevy Malibu is the car of the year, not some Japanese or European model this year. GM got tired of its ass getting kicked and made a superior product.

All that, and not one link to any proof....

[JohnDoe]

bull!

boeing was penalized by having to include employee healthcare in their costs while airbus pays none, boeing had to put in the costs of higher corporate taxes that the us government has put on them, boeing had to put in the higher costs of following EPA laws that the usa gvt has put on them....while airbus has less of an environmental expense.....there is soooooooo much more involved that penalizing boeing for being a usa company that is inherrently unfair, unjust, that is not being discussed here imo...

boeing is being screwed by the usa goverment themselves and are destined to continue to lose the bids.

also NOTE, the TAX REVENUES brought in by the 44, 000 jobs at boeing in the usa over the next 10-30 years, should be deducted from boeing's expense too....or at least be PART of the equation for goodness sakes!!!

jd

[Pale Rider]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004253027_tankerpolitics01.html


US lawmakers blast Boeing defense contract snub

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers have reacted angrily after the US military awarded a 35-billion-dollar aircraft deal to Europe's Northrop Grumman/EADS group, in a major blow to US manufacturers Boeing.

"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon's decision.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/useuropemilitary;_ylt=AvcF76HL8wUrz8Yp7Lh94GEDW7oF


but i'm sure mccain is all for the deal


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_air_force_tankers;_ylt=Alk6juV6Hrjb832Z9aZr UBkEtbAF

WASHINGTON - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.

But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.

Just more dirt on mclame... the "maverick"... the guy that likes to "stick it to his party"... why anyone will vote for that angry old man escapes me...

[Mr. P]

Some points to remember:

1) McCain exposed the corruption behind the initial deal, which involved a bevy of pay-offs, current DOD employees hooking Boeing up in exchange for future employment with Boeing and a less than open bidding process. Boeing's CEO rightly resigned and people went to jail because they were scheming to defraud the taxpayers of several billion dollars as well as breaking serious federal laws.

What exactly did he do wrong there? Is he supposed to just let a corrupt corporation defraud the American taxpayer simply because they're an American corporation?

2) The Air Force shared their evals of both planes with defense industry analysts and reporters and their judgment was shared by most of these people as well as people in the know at DOD. Boeing simply did not build the better plane. We're supposed to care about the best quality at a reasonable price. Boeing was offering a lower quality product at a higher price. We can' afford that in a time of war.

3) The US military already extensively uses foreign parts and equipment, from some of our individual weapons to key components in our missile defense program, fighter aircraft and our radar systems. This is no betrayal of America by the Air Force or anyone else, anyone spouting that is ignorant of both the military and defense procurement procedures. Btw, if the Navy doesn't get its shipbuilders into the realm of reality, we'll be buying Danish destroyers in another 5-6 years because they offer more firepower and technology at a better price than the crap being put out by America's shipbuilders.

4) Most important of all... 9,000 jobs were not lost.. 9,000 employees are not going to be laid off in Everett (where I spent all of last year living as a member of the USS Abraham Lincoln)... that was 9,000 potential new jobs. Meanwhile, a smaller number of jobs will be added in Alabama.

5) Lastly, the Boeing folks need to grow up, take this as a lesson learned and simply build a better product that can compete with competition. That's essentially what they did with the Dreamliner project, after several years of taking it on the chin from Airbus, they went back to the drawing board and revised the hell out of the Dreamliner project to make it "simply the best".

Americans shouldn't whine when they get bested by foreign competition. They should take that as motivation to innovate. That's why the Chevy Malibu is the car of the year, not some Japanese or European model this year. GM got tired of its ass getting kicked and made a superior product.

Excellent points, Nato!

I recall the Airbus had a significantly higher payload than Boeing. I think the endurance of the Airbus was higher also..I'd have to look back at it. In the world of tankers, the one that carries more and flies farther is better, all other performance factors being equal or close of course.

[Mr. P]

bull!

boeing was penalized by having to include employee healthcare in their costs while airbus pays none, boeing had to put in the costs of higher corporate taxes that the us government has put on them, boeing had to put in the higher costs of following EPA laws that the usa gvt has put on them....while airbus has less of an environmental expense.....there is soooooooo much more involved that penalizing boeing for being a usa company that is inherrently unfair, unjust, that is not being discussed here imo...

boeing is being screwed by the usa goverment themselves and are destined to continue to lose the bids.

also NOTE, the TAX REVENUES brought in by the 44, 000 jobs at boeing in the usa over the next 10-30 years, should be deducted from boeing's expense too....or at least be PART of the equation for goodness sakes!!!

jd
Wasn't it you just the other day complaining about corps avoiding taxes by moving operations outside the US?

[JohnDoe]

Wasn't it you just the other day complaining about corps avoiding taxes by moving operations outside the US?


Yes! That was me mr P.

And OUR gvt giving bids to companies from those other countries unfairly, also contributes to our corps leaving....

What was not considered in the Boeing bid price was the money the usa gvt got from it themselves....the corporate taxes given back to the usa gvt by a boeing contract verses the overseas competitors and the taxes collected by the usa government from all of the 44 thousand employees this bid was suppose to employ....

The competitor got to include in his bid the money their gvt is giving them in subsidies, the competitor did not have to calculate in his bid the cost of healthcare for employees which is substantial, because it is gvt funded.

you know, national healthcare would do more for corporations than it would do for us..... people that have coverage from their jobs will lose bigtime with higher taxes to pay for universal imho...

Corporations win bigtime and it allows them to compete with the other westernized companies whose healthcare is suppled by the gvt.

jd

[Mr. P]

Yes! That was me mr P.

And OUR gvt giving bids to companies from those other countries unfairly, also contributes to our corps leaving....

What was not considered in the Boeing bid price was the money the usa gvt got from it themselves....the corporate taxes given back to the usa gvt by a boeing contract verses the overseas competitors and the taxes collected by the usa government from all of the 44 thousand employees this bid was suppose to employ....

The competitor got to include in his bid the money their gvt is giving them in subsidies, the competitor did not have to calculate in his bid the cost of healthcare for employees which is substantial, because it is gvt funded.

you know, national healthcare would do more for corporations than it would do for us..... people that have coverage from their jobs will lose bigtime with higher taxes to pay for universal imho...

Corporations win bigtime and it allows them to compete with the other westernized companies whose healthcare is suppled by the gvt.

jd

What was unfair in the bidding? BTW Northrop Grumman is a US company.

[Pale Rider]

Excellent points, Nato!

I recall the Airbus had a significantly higher payload than Boeing. I think the endurance of the Airbus was higher also..I'd have to look back at it. In the world of tankers, the one that carries more and flies farther is better, all other performance factors being equal or close of course.

They're all good points, but as of yet, we haven't seen any proof that any of it is true...

[Mr. P]

LOS ANGELES - March 5, 2008 - When the process to replace America's aging fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers began in 2005, the U.S. Air Force made clear that it wanted a full and fair competition. Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) entered the competition with the understanding that if its proposal provided the best value to the warfighter and the American taxpayer, it could win the contract.

Since the Air Force's decision to award Northrop Grumman the KC-45A contract was announced, numerous erroneous comments have been repeated in the media and in Congress. In response, the company wants to make the following points clear: http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=137644

[Mr. P]

Some points to remember:

1) McCain exposed the corruption behind the initial deal, which involved a bevy of pay-offs, current DOD employees hooking Boeing up in exchange for future employment with Boeing and a less than open bidding process. Boeing's CEO rightly resigned and people went to jail because they were scheming to defraud the taxpayers of several billion dollars as well as breaking serious federal laws.

What exactly did he do wrong there? Is he supposed to just let a corrupt corporation defraud the American taxpayer simply because they're an American corporation?

2) The Air Force shared their evals of both planes with defense industry analysts and reporters and their judgment was shared by most of these people as well as people in the know at DOD. Boeing simply did not build the better plane. We're supposed to care about the best quality at a reasonable price. Boeing was offering a lower quality product at a higher price. We can' afford that in a time of war.

3) The US military already extensively uses foreign parts and equipment, from some of our individual weapons to key components in our missile defense program, fighter aircraft and our radar systems. This is no betrayal of America by the Air Force or anyone else, anyone spouting that is ignorant of both the military and defense procurement procedures. Btw, if the Navy doesn't get its shipbuilders into the realm of reality, we'll be buying Danish destroyers in another 5-6 years because they offer more firepower and technology at a better price than the crap being put out by America's shipbuilders.

4) Most important of all... 9,000 jobs were not lost.. 9,000 employees are not going to be laid off in Everett (where I spent all of last year living as a member of the USS Abraham Lincoln)... that was 9,000 potential new jobs. Meanwhile, a smaller number of jobs will be added in Alabama.

5) Lastly, the Boeing folks need to grow up, take this as a lesson learned and simply build a better product that can compete with competition. That's essentially what they did with the Dreamliner project, after several years of taking it on the chin from Airbus, they went back to the drawing board and revised the hell out of the Dreamliner project to make it "simply the best".

Americans shouldn't whine when they get bested by foreign competition. They should take that as motivation to innovate. That's why the Chevy Malibu is the car of the year, not some Japanese or European model this year. GM got tired of its ass getting kicked and made a superior product.


They're all good points, but as of yet, we haven't seen any proof that any of it is true...

On #1...I remember that scandle. Nato would need to provide the specifics to support it. I do know Boeing's CEO resigned.

#2.... I have no doubt the infomation was shared during the process. I would say Northrop and Airbus DID present the better aircraft.

#3.....True

#4......Jobs will not be lost...True.

#5.....True...Build a better mouse trap. They Boeing didn't do that (this time).

[NATO AIR]

1) Boeing/Air Force Corruption Scandal:

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111604g1.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/08/business/boeing.php

2) Air Force Evals Of Both Planes

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/business-news/biz-buzz/2008/02/is-today-d-day-for-the-tanker/

EADS beat them in 4 out of 5 selection criteria.. keep in mind once Boeing challenges this and the GAO reaches a decision on that challenge within 100 days, we'll likely see more technical data to fill in some of the details about how exactly the EADS was better than the Boeing.

3) See the Harriers our Marines fly, the missile defense system the Navy utilizes that contains Japanese portions and South Korean software programming, various types of side-arms and munitions we've bought from the Euros and since the Iraq war South African vehicles as well as numerous foreign innovations in everything from blood clotting techniques for battlefield medics to communications gear by the Swedes and network comms by the Estonians.

4) Read any news report that is not from a Seattle or anti-McCain news source and you might actually see Boeing notes it hasn't lost jobs, only potential future jobs. The aircraft line is still viable until 2012 at the earliest, due to existing consumer demand worldwide.

5) Read anything on the web about Boeing's history and then the Dreamliner and you'll see where foreign competition made Boeing grow the hell up and just make a better airliner.

Do I need to mention that unionized workers (like the whining schmuks in Everett) in this country seem to have some sense of undue entitlement that has nothing to do with the quality of their work or their company's profit?

[nevadamedic]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251273_webtankerwin29.html

EADS/Northrop trumps Boeing in Air Force tanker competition

Boeing has lost the long-awaited and lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract to a competing bid based on an Airbus airplane, Air Force officials said Friday.

The newly named KC-45A plane will be produced by a partnership between Europe's EADS and Northrop Grumman, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said.

The outcome is a shocking upset, kept secret until just before the formal announcement today.

The Boeing loss means that the 767 assembly line in Everett will wind to a close around 2012 when the current commercial orders run out.

No layoffs are likely as workers will transfer to other programs. But Washington State has lost out on the chance to add as many as 9,000 jobs.

Until now, Boeing has had a monopoly on the supply of large air tankers to the U.S. military. But Northrop Grumman, in partnership with Airbus parent EADS, will build the next generation tankers using a modified Airbus A330 instead of the Everett-built 767 Boeing had put forward.

--------------------------------------

How is it an "american" company partnered [legal ramifications +] with an overseas company gets a contract to build united states of america military airplanes? granted, the airplanes are not super high tech or top secret, however, how is it that we are now reliant on a foreign "partnership" [btw -- when a corporation becomes a partner, its not like you and i becoming partners, corps are not partnerships] for our re-fuelers?

As the article also points out, this will probably lose 9000 american jobs

Boeing has been losing contracts for years. The fact is that Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Skunkworks makes better and more affordable aircraft.

[nevadamedic]

Lets look at the list............

Lockheed Skunkworks

1. F-22 Raptor
2. F-117 Stealth
3. XST Have Blue (Prototype for the Stealth)
4. SR-71 Blackbird
5. U2 Spy Plane
6. P-38 Lightning
7. P-80 Shooting Star
8. XF-90
9. P-104 Star Fighter
10. QT-2PC
11. Army-Lockheed YO-3A
12. A-12 Oxcart
13. D-21 Tagboard
14. Polecat
15. QSST Quiet Supersonic Transport
16. X-27
17. X-35
18. SR-91 Aurora

They even designed the first Stealth Boat, the Sea Shadow which I posted pictures of in another thread which I can put a link to if you want.

Northrop Grumman

1. B-2 Spirit (Stealth Bomber)
2. F-5
3. E-8C Joint Stars Surveillance Aircraft
4. RQ-4 Global Hawk
5. T-38 Talon Supersonic Trainer
6. BQM-74 Chukar
7. C-2 Greyhound
8. E-2 Hawkeye
9. EA-6B Prowler
10. The mojor Components for the F/A-18 Hornet
11. KC-30

They also own and operate Newport News which makes all of the U.S. Aircraft Carriers and the only company capable of building the Nimitz Class of Supercarriers and also the majority of all U.S. Nuclear Submarines as well as Amphibias Assault Ships, Ice Breakers, Tankers and Cargo Ships.

The truth is Boeing cant compete with these companies.