Comments on: Tanker Travails

By: Dougloid

Dougloid — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:55:30 +0000

I may have said this somewhere before but if the morons over at the Department of Commerce (those are those ‘tough Federal regulators’ you keep hearing about) hadn’t allowed the ‘acquisition’ of Douglas (really dismemberment of the only credible competitor they had) go through, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Had Airbus decided to invest in Douglas they would have had a turnkey plant with some of the best aerospace workers in the world there.
Even the airforce doesn’t like monopolies. so, having strangled the competition the government now has to reinvent it with government contracts in an effort to build obsolete commercial airliners without windows and big gas tanks.
What a screwy world we live in.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:28:21 +0000

I know this is not a popular view, but I think it would be the best thing for Boeing to let this go. This project has been a long and expensive distraction for Boeing at a time when they do not have the resources to spare.

My understanding is that the tanker contract is for only two planes per month which would put the 767 line at a whopping 5 per month until the commercial orders are finished in a couple of years. I’m sure that Boeing can put that space at Everett to use building more 787’s or 777NG’s.

This also shuts down Airbus’s argument at the WTO. I will gladly give up the KC767 program for an end to government subsidies to Airbus.

By: Sal

Sal — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:25:22 +0000

Keesje, here we go again - Lessons in American democracy 101…

The Air Force generals were TOLD to say that by their civilian bosses. What you didn’t mention was when pressed by the Senate Armed Services Committee if the PERSONALLY wanted more F-22s, C-17s those same generals said, Yes, we do need them.

Please stop twisting the facts to fit your one sided, always anti-Boeing agenda.

After hearing Boeing’s points in the GAO protest, I’m even more convinced that they will get at least part of the KC-X contract. The Air Force NEVER required a MRTT in the RFP. Boeings offering beat requirements by at least 20% - much more in three catagories. But Air Force officals said that anything over 20% would not give the competitors any “extra credit”, although they seemed to do so with the KC-30.

Contrary to what these “analysts” are say that NG will most likely keep the KC-X award (Remember, these are the same analysts that predicted Boeing would win this by a landslide) I’m convinced that the KC-X will either be split or, worst case, rebid.

I can be fair about this issue… The KC-30 will be a superb aircraft… So will the KC-767. And there is an excellent chance that they’ll be sharing tarmac space together.

Yes Keesje, I stand by what I said. Boeing will get something out of it, and if you don’t think so, then you don’t understand the political, industrial and economic ramifications of this issue, by most Americans.

By: keesje

keesje — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:08:57 +0000

Sal: “Boeing IS going to walk away with something.”

If that is true, what could it be? More C-17’s? last week the USAF reconfirmed for some reason they don’t need more..

By: J. James

J. James — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:38:40 +0000

If only some people knew; remember the USAF only requested about 1 tanker a month which is why Boeing stated about 19 a year. Airbus touted 49 a year however the Airforce could only afford about 19 a year and Boeing was willing to comply. If the Airforce wanted, Boeing could pump out a 767 every 3 days or about 120 but we all know the USAF doesn’t have that in its budget for the year. As for errogance? - ah pompus!! Errogance is not standing with your ally in Iraq, trading military for oil with the Iraqis, and taking all you can and giving nothing back. They shaft Microsoft with a 1.5B fine and the Airfarce attempts to reward them. And now what about the cost of doing business with them? The dollar is almost worthless against the Euro which means their plane will cost a bunch more. And now NG comes up with new figures showing up to 49000 jobs instead of 25000 - just who’s the idiot doing the math in that company. Who can have an estimate that far off and still be employed? Do you want this kind of wild changes handling your countries defense? I think not. Buy Boeing and keep on going.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:58:30 +0000

Stop whining! Guaranteeing a Boeing win will only allow them to overcharge and rip off the taxpayer, and they have plenty of history that shows where their priorities lie. If all of you are so concerned with US employment then stop buying all that Chinese stuff at Walmart. In fact turn over your keyboard, where is it made?
As for France withholding parts, that is ridiculous, and so would be Italy withholding parts for the 767. Russia make 5% of the A330, news to me but who cares if true. I doubt it’s anything that couldn’t be made elsewhere if the need arose. I’m sure if you look hard enough the 767 has a few % built outside the US or EU.
How much money will now be wasted (ie given to Boo-hooing for spares and maintenance) flying the out of date KC135s until this appeal is heard.

By: Aerospace Enthus

Aerospace Enthus — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:45:27 +0000

I am neither a Boeing employee nor a shareholder, and careless about politics. I’m an independent and always vote for Republicans but my trust was violated. There were a several other deals were reversed and gave to Europe and this tanker deal is a final straw for me. Please tell me when was the last time that the US defense company won any big contract or any thing that was similar.

I don’t know what the tanker’s outcome gonna be but I do know this, Republicans are not on my list in November.

An Aerospace enthusiast