Printable View
I just heard on the news that a European bidder won a $35 billion contract for manufacturing components for a new U. S. Air Force Tanker aircraft??????
Man, I just lost the little bit of confidence I had left in this country's government....... Because this is a family forum, I won't even use the words I want to, but it really sucks when we have to get foreign countries to build equipment for our military........
there is a report out today that McCain's people lobbied for the french company to get the contract. Boeing is pissed to say the least.
To bad we do not have an alternative back up replacement candiate for the {TOP JOB OF THIS COUNTRY}
Richard
The contract was awarded to Northrup Grumman ,they are in bed with the French Company that make the Air Bus.
Just another case of US jobs going off shore.I wonder what the bids were on the contract.
I think the Boeing bid was lower than Northrup, but the Pentagods in Washington went for a little increased capacity-
The McCaindeal was that he and some others squashed an earlier deal where the Air Force was going to lease the tankers for several years and then buy them---making the total much higher
Also a high up officer in Boeing and a Federal buyer are doing time behind bars now because she was offered a job for after she retired!!!!
I've got about 4500 hours time flying the 767 and its one of my favorite planes---sure wish they hadn't goofed up
no comment:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Northrup Grumman is an American company, where else could they have gone to have the plane built? Boeing, Lockheed Martin? I think not, they compete against each other...not work together. It indeed sucks to think France would get even one red cent of our defense budget, but they are on our list of approved suppliers....Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Dalton
I think Boeing should have been given one of those no bid contracts.....just like Halliburton......:3dSMILE:
Halliburton??? Heck, they don't have to bed, just take the money to the bank!!!! And of course our VP cut all ties with Halliburton when Honest George hired him!!!!!!!:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceh383
Ya know what, Tech is right!!!! It's probably to late to do anything besides just watch this country self destruct........then hopefully hang around long enough to see if the people learned anything when the rebuild commences......
Makes me just want to slap some body:whacked:
Unfortunately, the "rebuild" may be done by China. They already own a substantial chunk of the banking industry...:HMMM:
I've already decided to vote for "Nunuf theeabov"! :-)
I was trying to think of somethin snide or witty to say, here, but all I can come up with is a frown, and a slow shake of my head. The slippery slope is getting steeper, and more slippery by the day.:mad: :( :CRY:
Just more jobs and another $35 billion leaving the country......
Sure is pitiful when we can't even build the stuff our own Air Force needs........
I hear there's some really good racing in Australia....Anybody wanna come along? maybe we can open a CHR shop!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
I'd almost give that some thought, but they don't let you have guns down under.
I had a job once where I had to carry a gun every day...People kept shooting at me all the time!!!! Anyway, I like hot rods and race cars a heck of a lot better then guns anyhow!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by NTFDAY
I sort of expected that type of reply and I respect you for it. The other problem is that they drive on the wrong side of the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
I just really have no desire to go back to it..... My experience with shooting people is that it never really solves the problem....Heck, in this country you'd run out of bullets long before you got the problem solved anyway!!!!!!:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:Quote:
Originally Posted by NTFDAY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: That's a very valid point. :3dSMILE:
I believe I heard that a contract like that here could bring as many as 45,000 jobs.:confused: :confused: :confused: I just don't get it.
yes but bottom line is the old mighty dollar. Its more profitable to give those jobs to a underpaid 45,000 people in another country.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedIII
Can't remember when I last voted FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone in our presidential elections. Makes one wonder why even take the time.
yes this state is going to be reeling from that goof-up. we probably just lost a bunch of jobs.:mad:
control a nations money, and you control the nation. the fedral reserve is a crinimal cartel.
:) I must say it will be interesting to see what happens after the next WTO meeting with regards to the arguments before the council regarding subsidies paid to Airbus by the French and German governments over the past couple decades.
See, for a long time, Airbus has been subsidized by the French and German governments to compete with Boeing. It, in fact, is how they finally overtook Boeing in Aircraft sales......they essentially gave their airplanes away at a price Boeing wasn't able to compete with a lot of times. The difference was covered by the European tax base.......Boeing and the US Government have both filed suit against Airbus and the EU to eliminate the subsidies as they claim they are unfair trade practices. Airbus and the EU have always claimed that Boeing also receives subsidies in the form of U.S. Government military contracts that Airbus has had no access to.....that is, until now.
Maybe this is the one time in my life that I'll choose (possibly being naive here) to be a little optimistic and say, you know what, this story may not be over quite yet.
There may be something brewing here that might end up reversing the award of this contract or being the end of Airbus.....they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner here.
Considering Airbus' stock took a 25% hit in one day when they announced a pretty significant delay in delivering their new A380 to their customers than originally anticipated. Furthermore, as a result of penalties they've had to pay the airlines to not lose their contracts, it is rumored that they now have to sell close to 460 of their new airplanes to break even, when their original figures were closer to 245. So far, they have only received orders for a little over 130. They essentially bet the company on that horse, and they may be in a bit of trouble there.
Boeing on the other hand has orders for over 450 of their new 787's. A bit more solid footing and that's the horse their betting on.
Don't get me wrong, if Boeing has the same kinds of setbacks that Airbus has had, then they'll be in the same boat on equal footing with them. But, just from a standpoint of where things are right now financially for the two companies, if Airbus was forced by the US Government to give up their subsidies to maintain the tanker contract......well, then Boeing may be at quite a distinct advantage suddenly in the commercial market coming out the other side of this.
All that being said, I'm sure Boeing is upset about the awarding of the contract and may very well file a protest that could catch the attention of those in congress. I'd also say that as a result of all of this, the heir apparent Republican nominee for Pres, will have a bit of explaining to do because of this whole deal.
While he can truthfully say that his argument was with a previous tanker contract, one in fact, that turned out to have some scandelous issues, I'm sure the Democratic nominee (and a few engineers/machinists in a few states) probably won't simply let him off the hook that easy. He'll end up taking a bit of hit on this one before it's all over I think.
Regardless of what happens in the end, one thing is certain, I'll be watching it all unfold with a great deal of interest.
Cheers,
Dutch
Boeing just got caught resting on its laurels when it counted. It's about performance as much or more than cost and the other plane delivered. End of story. Or do we want to endless attempt to justify why lack of performance of the Boeing ship failed this or that or even cost lives in the future?
As I understand it McCain did not lobby on the behalf of anybody. What he did was insist that the contract not simply be sole sourced to Boeing and it go through a competative procurement process which is supposed to happen anyway.
Although it is not exactly making friends within DOD, Boeing is well within its right to contest the outcome and now the air force will review the whole ball of wax again over the next 100 days and make sure they made the right decision. This decision by the way is based upon technical, managerial, and fiscal content and not what John McCain wants. He is not a proposal reviewer, and there are many of those people involved.
I understand the resentment to send things over seas but I personally don't have a problem with any of this. We compete for all our contracts down here for DOD. NG is going to get tons of money from this and if the French make a better product than perhaps Boeing will get a little better. Competative procurement is what keeps everyone technically and fiscally honest.
Kitz
Yep. Now in some cases there is enough money to build two or more prototypes and have the contractors duke it out with the hardware. I guess that was not in the cards for this particular procurement. But then in the end maybe it could be since it is being contested?
Kitz
My friend works for Pratt Whitney as an aeronotical engineer. He's worked for Lockeed Martin as well in the past. It seems these contracts come and go all of the time, like the new version of the Harrier Jet Fighter, that both Boeing and Lockeed Martin are designing together. The engine is being worked on by Pratt Whitney. Pratt Whitney also has several joint ventures with other companies like Rolls Royce(jet engines). I think the american car analogy fits well here, where our cars made in the US have more Japanese, Korean and Mexican and some Canadian parts, than they do American. Some Japanese cars like Toyata are assembled over here with many American parts. Its all very confusing. **)
I know in the aerospace industry, this is the case. When my friend worked for Lockeed, he was working on the Atlas 3 rocket. After he finished there, he said the engine for the rocket was Russian! Go figure!
I am sad when I think that the US has so many well educated people looking for employment, that this would not factor into sourcing a airplane contract. My friend had tough times finding a job when his contract at Lockeed ended. The jobs in this field come and go with projects. A project like this is huge for people's livelyhoods!:CRY:
Let's see, I believe this scenario has played before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechicken
Some thirty years ago Zenith claimed the same thing over the Japanese practice of dumping electronics, particularly television sets, in the United States. The main difference is that our government and courts sided with the Japanese and Zenith went to Mexico and went belly up.
At the time this wasn't a national security issue as I think this one will become. On the other hand try and find a consumer electronic device solely manufactured in the United States and owned by an American company.
We've been sold down the river and we are to blame. :mad:
because the top three candidates want to collapse the economy onto itself and creat a northamerican union just like europe.
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