Printable View
I hope they revise the contract after the 100 day review, but I have seen crazy things happen with computer contracts at the state level so I hope this does not result in job losses in the US. The analogy to what happened to Zenith is all too true!
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Quote:
Originally Posted by gassersrule_196
Uhhhh what? It's obvious McCain did this to undermine the US economy just in time for him to run for president. **) :LOL: I don't know anything about any North American Uniion except that there ain't none. This is routine GOV procurement, pure and simple. $38 Billion; go find something else to complain about 'cause this is chump change ..................
Kitz
Prior to retiring,the airline I worked for went shopping for replacement aircraft. Bought Boeing, new 737-800's.Airbus offerd lots of "attractive incentives" prior due the purchase and continued to do so up 'till the time we took delivery of the Boeings. Government backing and the European community help keep Airbus going. McCain only wanted to ensure Boeing was'nt the only bidder. Oh yeah. French Air Force tankers...Boeing KC-135's.
Kitz you're correct that is what McCain was going after. Although, it will end up costing more in the end and I'll get to that in a second; but, what I was getting at was that it doesn't matter that McCain wasn't involved in the actual proposal evaluation in as much as he was seen to kill the tanker deal between the Air Force and Boeing. His opposition would be stupid not to use that to their advantage in an add campaign made to point out that as a result, he sent jobs overseas. Maybe I'm wrong about this; but, I believe he'll be answering questions about it all before the election is over, and it could indeed cost him votes, right or wrong....Quote:
Originally Posted by kitz
So, with regards to the competative procurement. As a part of the whole process, the government will draft a set of specifications to ensure that they get what they pay for and they aren't price gouged. There are a couple problems with this though.
First, the procurement process can drag on forever as requirements are refined over and over. Meanwhile as a war fighter, your existing equipment continues to deterioate. That's what drove the whole Tanker lease deal to begin with. The fact that the procurement process takes years to accomplish what can be done in months.
Second, and what's funny about this whole thing is, that this is exactly where the infamous "$200.00 Hammer" and the "$500.00 Toilet Seat" came from. Here's how....as part of the specification for that $500.00 toilet seat for example, it was stated that because it was going to be used in an aircraft installation it must meet such and such a tolerance for sheer and equivelent g impact forces. That is the government spec, not the manufacturer's. You can't really just go to Home Depot and get one that will withstand that will do the trick......and no I don't work for Home Depot or the Toilet Seat manufacturer in question.....:LOL:
So, in order to meet the specification, the manufacturer has to prove (in this case) that these seats will withstand that sort of impact through a rigorous series of tests thereby showing the government that they are getting what they are paying for. The final cost of the seat includes the R&D to create a seat that will withstand the sheer and impact as well as the certification testing that goes into them. So, when the politicians stand up before us all and lambast manufacturers for gouging the government, what people don't hear is the real reason that the damn things cost so much in the first place.
So, the bottom line is that while competative procurement, appears to keep us as you say, technically and fiscally responsible, it also feeds the very same beast that it is meant to tame.
I'll give you an example, when I was in the Air Force, one of the duties that I ended up pulling placed me at Edwards AFB during the flight test phase of the new (at the time) McDonnell Douglas C-17's. Those airplanes were spec'd out just like a typical government pre-$500.00 toilet seat "gouging scandal" :rolleyes: contracts were. The cost of the airplane eventually climbed up over $200 Million a copy. The Air Force could have bought off the shelf a bigger airframe in the 747 with more cargo and passenger capacity at about 2/3 the price. Not only that, but, because that particular airframe was already certified, the Air Force (believe it or not) could have sold them off to an airline or cargo company like FedEx, UPS, DHL etc, and recovered some of their cash years down the road if they so desired.
Because the C-17's aren't cert'd for use as a commercially operated cargo or passenger airplane, the USAF would first have to foot the bill to have it certified and then convince a customer to purchase them and maintain a spares pool that would only be used for one specific model.....the C-17.
As for the comment regarding the French making a better product, well, I guess I can only say, they definitely make a different product that's for sure. Different design philosophies as to who is in control of the airplane etc. I wouldn't say it is necessarily better or worse. Many people in the aviation industry such as myself have their own favorites and believe it or not, it's very similar to the good natured ribbings that we make on this forum regarding Ford vs. Chevy etc.
And while I absolutely understand how the procurement process is "supposed to work" I don't think that the final decision had much to do with anything other than the notion that there were a few people in some fairly high places of the government that got stung pretty good when the original 767 Tanker lease deal melted down the way it did back in 2003/4. This may be Boeing's retribution for the shenanigans that went on with Mike Sears and Darlene Druyun.....I think that is the lesson that Boeing should walk away with more so than a change in the actual construction or the design philosophy of their products.
I don't expect to see much of a change in the tanker deal after the review, I'm just interested in seeing how the subsidies issue with the WTO pans out now that Airbus has a U.S. Govt contract.
:confused: I guess I'm confused by this....What is it that you're referring to as failures or lack of performance with regards to the Boeing ship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Twitch
Jon,Do a quick Google search on North American Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitz
The president along with some of the elite people in gov. went behind closed doors.
There are even plans for a "Super-hi-way" that will extend from Texas to the twin cites in MINN.
I don't think either party gives a damn about "illeal aliens" and I believe they are all in this togther and I don't think it matters who becomes president.
Yes,the Amero is on it's way.
im not a bit surprised!! anyone know whos making our troops body armour these days??????????? my nephews doesnt have a tag on it , and my niece says hers is a nam throwback!! not that a nam vest isnt good , worked ok for my dad , uncles and myself , but in this day and age they should have better equipment.... GGRRUBERMENT:(
The last I heard, making such jackets was the main livelihood of Col. (ret) Oliver North at a plant in Northern Virginia, but that information is several years old, you could check but I suspect he is still subject to the usual labyrinthe of procurement procedures.
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder