USAF Awards Tanker Contract to EADS and Northrop-Grumman

2008-02-29 18:04:42

#1

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6893|Melbourne - Home of Football

"EADS, the European defence company, scored a stunning victory in its campaign to penetrate the US defence market on Friday by winning a $35bn (£17.6bn) contract to supply the US Air Force with refuelling tankers.

EADS and Northrop Grumman, its US partner, beat Boeing in a competition that could ultimately mean a contract worth more than $100bn."

From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0681c90-e726 … fd2ac.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Air Force decision awarding a $35 billion aircraft contract to a team including the European parent of Airbus landed like a bomb in Congress on Friday, drawing howls of protest from lawmakers aligned with the loser, America's Boeing Co.

The Congressional delegation from the Seattle area said they were "outraged." Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt vowed to seek a review of the decision "at the highest levels of the Pentagon and Congress" in hopes of reversing it."

From:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politics … dChannel=0

2008-02-29 18:05:46

#2

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7189

Oh christ not an Airbus. POS

2008-02-29 18:07:44

#3

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7071

a lot of our stuff is from europe.

2008-02-29 18:11:36

#4

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6893|Melbourne - Home of Football

Just for a talking point, what do you think about a number of American senators, especially from the Chicago area, as mentioned in the Reuters article, saying that the planes should be built by an American company, with American workers, in America?

Is that fair enough, or a contradiction to the Free Trade platform the US tries to push on the world stage and at the WTO, especially with reference to China. Can you really justify all defence spending being done at home if there is / may be a better product out there?

2008-02-29 18:12:22

#5

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7071

Im for America first, sorry.

2008-02-29 18:14:58

#6

c14u53w172: Member; +31|6426|tomania

eads will build a factory for the planes in america

2008-02-29 18:37:20

#7

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7079|USA

usmarine wrote:
Oh christ not an Airbus. POS

agreed, I got a stomach ache when I read the article earlier.

2008-02-29 18:39:47

#8

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7079|USA

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Just for a talking point, what do you think about a number of American senators, especially from the Chicago area, as mentioned in the Reuters article, saying that the planes should be built by an American company, with American workers, in America?

Is that fair enough, or a contradiction to the Free Trade platform the US tries to push on the world stage and at the WTO, especially with reference to China. Can you really justify all defence spending being done at home if there is / may be a better product out there?

It may be a better "deal" but it ain't a better product by a long shot.

2008-02-29 18:42:42

#9

PureFodder: Member; +225|6713

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Just for a talking point, what do you think about a number of American senators, especially from the Chicago area, as mentioned in the Reuters article, saying that the planes should be built by an American company, with American workers, in America?

Is that fair enough, or a contradiction to the Free Trade platform the US tries to push on the world stage and at the WTO, especially with reference to China. Can you really justify all defence spending being done at home if there is / may be a better product out there?

Rich countries don't pay much attention to free trade.

2008-02-29 18:46:42

#10

NantanCochise: Member; +55|6406|Portugal/United States

Dont worry guys, this will be good for the EU and US. Just gonna have to trust me.

2008-02-29 20:35:18

#11

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7189

NantanCochise wrote:
Dont worry guys, this will be good for the EU and US. Just gonna have to trust me.

wont be good for the people with the shitbusses.

2008-02-29 21:46:52

#12

VspyVspy: Sniper; +183|7100|A sunburnt country

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im for America first, sorry.

I'm for what's best for the Men and Women on the front line.

2008-02-29 22:30:41

#13

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6815

VspyVspy wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im for America first, sorry.
I'm for what's best for the Men and Women on the front line.

Thats the point. This is cheapest, not best necessarily. Also, remember he is Army, so dont act like he doesnt care about that.

2008-02-29 22:35:17

#14

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7142|US

Well, at least they finally made a decision...wait, now the refs are reviewing the play.

2008-03-01 01:11:46

#15

zeidmaan: Member; +234|6843|Vienna

Pretty stupid considering how much money we are talking about. US spend a ridiculous amount of money on military, but if its spend domestically than that money is injected in to the economy. American owners, American shareholders, American and Mexican workers (lol) that spend their money in America. If you outsource it than that money is going to Lichtenstein Less you outsource the better.
As far as free trade, they could always claim that its a matter of National Security to build military hardware domestically. Since, as many people here point out (actually only 2), Europe has been overtaken by Muslim extremist who control every aspect of our miserable lives - dun DUN DUN!!!

2008-03-01 01:40:28

#16

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7189

zeidmaan wrote:
Pretty stupid considering how much money we are talking about. US spend a ridiculous amount of money on military, but if its spend domestically than that money is injected in to the economy. American owners, American shareholders, American and Mexican workers (lol) that spend their money in America. If you outsource it than that money is going to Lichtenstein Less you outsource the better.
As far as free trade, they could always claim that its a matter of National Security to build military hardware domestically. Since, as many people here point out (actually only 2), Europe has been overtaken by Muslim extremist who control every aspect of our miserable lives - dun DUN DUN!!!

Well good or bad the govt is starting to buy like an airline. Since Airbus is usually the cheapest, they went with shitbus. They will find out that you get what you pay for.

2008-03-01 03:10:06

#17

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6977|UK

I dunno what the bitching is about, half the work will be done in alabama, with wings, undercarriage done in wales (UK). Average American joes still get the lion's share of the work.

If boeing's appeal is based on the idea that it should be an american company protecting america, that is an admission that they just can't cut it against fair competition.

Martyn

2008-03-01 03:10:34

#18

mikkel: Member; +383|7029

lowing wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Just for a talking point, what do you think about a number of American senators, especially from the Chicago area, as mentioned in the Reuters article, saying that the planes should be built by an American company, with American workers, in America?

Is that fair enough, or a contradiction to the Free Trade platform the US tries to push on the world stage and at the WTO, especially with reference to China. Can you really justify all defence spending being done at home if there is / may be a better product out there?
It may be a better "deal" but it ain't a better product by a long shot.

How would you know?

2008-03-01 03:15:33

#19

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|7082

Boeing is ftw. Airbus is ftl.

2008-03-01 03:48:09

#20

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7079|USA

mikkel wrote:
lowing wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Just for a talking point, what do you think about a number of American senators, especially from the Chicago area, as mentioned in the Reuters article, saying that the planes should be built by an American company, with American workers, in America?

Is that fair enough, or a contradiction to the Free Trade platform the US tries to push on the world stage and at the WTO, especially with reference to China. Can you really justify all defence spending being done at home if there is / may be a better product out there?
It may be a better "deal" but it ain't a better product by a long shot.
How would you know?

I am an aircraft mechanic who spent the better part of 20 years working on Boeing aircraft, and a few Airbuses at a few airlines. From my experience my opinion is Airbus does not have a superior product. There were also parts availability issues.

I do not wanna fly on anything that the tail tears off for no other reason than the pilot pushed the rudder pedals too much.

2008-03-01 03:52:38

#21

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7049|London, England

Well if it beat Boeing in the competition, then it's better. Quite simple no?

Think about it, what you guys want is Affirmative Action. You want the lesser thing to be used, just because it's American. How far is that from hiring Ethnic Minorities even though they may have done worse in the training/test or whatever. Just for the sake of hiring Ethnic Minorities.

Not that far.

---------

Although there could be Shady Behind the scenes shit too

2008-03-01 03:58:52

#22

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7079|USA

Mek-Izzle wrote:
Well if it beat Boeing in the competition, then it's better. Quite simple no?

Think about it, what you guys want is Affirmative Action. You want the lesser thing to be used, just because it's American. How far is that from hiring Ethnic Minorities even though they may have done worse in the training/test or whatever. Just for the sake of hiring Ethnic Minorities.

Not that far.

---------

Although there could be Shady Behind the scenes shit too

Don't get me wrong, my opinion about Airbus and Boeing are not worth shit to this OP. They are just my opinion. Obviously the people in the "know" saw something that set Airbus apart from Boeing. I am not sure what that was, but so be it. I just think Airbus was picked over Boeing because of better incentives and not necessarily because of a better product.

2008-03-01 04:04:21

#23

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6839|'Murka

If I recall correctly (I'll have to double check when I get into the office tomorrow), the Airbus/NG solution provided for more tankers with a lower capacity for each than the Boeing solution. If that is truly the case, then I can see that weighing heavily in Airbus's favor.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-01 04:07:33

#24

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7079|USA

FEOS wrote:
If I recall correctly (I'll have to double check when I get into the office tomorrow), the Airbus/NG solution provided for more tankers with a lower capacity for each than the Boeing solution. If that is truly the case, then I can see that weighing heavily in Airbus's favor.

Don't know that can be, I have never worked the A330 but I think it is bigger than the B767 isn't it?.

2008-03-01 04:42:11

#25

samfink: Member; +31|6983

Airbus offered more tankers, and larger ones, so you can re-fuel more aircraft in one trip, saving fuel.

BF2S Forums USAF Awards Tanker Contract to EADS and Northrop-Grumman

usmarine wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

NantanCochise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

VspyVspy wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

lowing wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer