A congressman from Pennsylvania suggested Boeing and Northrup Grumman split the 35 billion dollar tanker deal.
What do you think?
10 Comments
vern said:
Stop the compromising!
Be smart.
Give Boeing the contract.
At most, during the transition, you have two models flying.
Both models rely on US-made parts, and the Air Force pays all of the contract to Boeing and American contractors for the next 40 or more years.
If you go with the Airbus, the first bunch are European-made.
You have three different models of tankers flying during the transition.
After the transition, two different models.
Decades from now, taxpayer money is still going to partners in Europe.
What if you have two broken, dissimilar tankers on some far-off base?
You can't cannibalize and put one in the air.
Remember, the first batch will be European-made.
The period that they would be delivered may coincide with part of our recession.
What psychological effect will pretty, new Airbuses with U.S.A.F. marking have?
We have a couple generations who have been brain-washed with "Americans can't make good cars. Americans can make X,Y,Z."
And please, Mr. President,
Cancel the British-Italian Marine One chopper contract.
Mike Anthony said:
Let me see, we are in the middle of a job shortage in our nation. We have a huge trade imbalance, our industries are struggling to keep folks working and some of our national leaders want to our source one of our major military contracts to a non-US suppler. Yep, sure looks good to me, but then I also believe in the tooth fairy. GET REAL!!
meme said:
maybe everyone in Washington should boycott anything made in pennsylvania than this jerk wad congressman might get a clue, we can start with penzoil
Steven L. Pennington, SR said:
I enlisted in the Air Force in 1969 and was assigned to an Air Refueling Squadron equipped with KC-135 tankers. I saw one of those same aircraft at an air show at Mt. Home AFB last September. It is a crime for our politicians to jeopardize the lives of our service members by forcing them to operate obsolete equipment. The same elected representatives who screwed up the last tanker deal are still in office. Why should we have the slightest confidence in their ability to do the right thing with a new contract? Rep. Murtha is suggesting a plan that wqould double the price to operate a new tanker fleet. Twice the training facilities, logistics, spare parts, proficiency and contract monitoring wil be required. This is not a jobs program, it is our national defense. SLP
Steve said:
Seeing how Boeing hasn't been able to deliver the Dreamliner on time what makes you think they will be able to build these tankers in a timely manner? I think splitting the contract is more than generous.
Adrian said:
We need to stop rewarding contracts to companies that can't live up to it's promise, loyalty goes only to friends and family - everything else is just business, make them be competetive! No different than the bailout issues of today, put up or take bullwinkle for a spin...
Spouse of IAM said:
Why on strike machinists are laid off when Boeing is lying its profit??? Boeing doesn't need to pay penalty for those company whose ordered the planes. When these machinists work their butts off while eating their Mrs. President's food services at the plant, the idiot President is making salary of 400 times more than a machinist. Come on~ when they can't figure out how to get the Dreamliner together with those wonderful "dream team" engineers~ What a company can do? "Profit oriented; Morally Bankrupt"
c said:
Boeing can't get their act together with the Dreamliner, has a 3,000 airplane backlog, is in constant disarray with its employees and fires employees because it is in so called 'financial turmoil' ... which one braincell in your mind makes you think that they pull off building more planes on time?
I'm all for jobs, but I'm also in favor of actually getting this job done.
Harold Olsen said:
Boeing should not even be considered for the tanker deal. They are years behind in filling their orders with commercial airlines. If they can't fill them then what makes people believe that they'd be able to complete the tanker deal on time.
Boeing is laying off employees when they should be hiring more people so they can complete the orders they are currently unable to fill. Boeing is lucky that the airlines who have ordered planes from them have not canceled their orders and demanded a refund of whatever money they have paid and take their business elsewhere. That's what I'd do.
DebA said:
A voice of reason:
1.) Airbus doesn't compete. Not when four governements fund the company and won't disclose how much funding they provide to Airbus. They do this because it is a jobs program. Boeing is not competing on a level playing field. The EU trys to argue that Boeing gets subsidized by the US government because they provide R&D funding. This is a total Strawman argument. The R&D funding is necessary for any new product and is a legimate funding item. We do it to the tune of 6 billion dollars for the oil industry and millions to agricultural companies like AMD. I'm not saying it's right in all cases, but it is done in several industries.
2.) These jobs will not only be for Washington State. They will provide jobs in many other states such as Kansas and California (CA's current unemployment rate is over 10%). The dream liner is an individual line of aircraft. Should the tanker deal come to Boeing they will provide a new line that may or may not be built in WA. It will provide way more jobs in the United States than Airbus jobs would ever provide. Most of the Airbus jobs will be in Europe. Please do not be mistaken about this.
3.) Wake up US, the Airplane industy is one of the last vestiages of American industry still going strong. Why in the world would we deal a blow to it by selecting it's only competitor for a 40 billion contract paid by US taxpayers. It's like we are trying to commit industry suicide with the decisions being made on these contracts.
4.) Just because Boeing has made some bad decisions recently, doesn't wipe out all the good decisions they've made. Please step back and use some common sense and realize we need to keep these high paying jobs in the US. I would even be okay with Boeing building a new facility in the South to build the tanker and provide jobs rather than the contract going to Airbus. We need to do all we can to strengthen those industries that are strong in the US, not weaken them. Right now these jobs are needed here more than ever!!
DebA
Stop the compromising!
Be smart.
Give Boeing the contract.
At most, during the transition, you have two models flying.
Both models rely on US-made parts, and the Air Force pays all of the contract to Boeing and American contractors for the next 40 or more years.
If you go with the Airbus, the first bunch are European-made.
You have three different models of tankers flying during the transition.
After the transition, two different models.
Decades from now, taxpayer money is still going to partners in Europe.
What if you have two broken, dissimilar tankers on some far-off base?
You can't cannibalize and put one in the air.
Remember, the first batch will be European-made.
The period that they would be delivered may coincide with part of our recession.
What psychological effect will pretty, new Airbuses with U.S.A.F. marking have?
We have a couple generations who have been brain-washed with "Americans can't make good cars. Americans can make X,Y,Z."
And please, Mr. President,
Cancel the British-Italian Marine One chopper contract.
Let me see, we are in the middle of a job shortage in our nation. We have a huge trade imbalance, our industries are struggling to keep folks working and some of our national leaders want to our source one of our major military contracts to a non-US suppler. Yep, sure looks good to me, but then I also believe in the tooth fairy. GET REAL!!
maybe everyone in Washington should boycott anything made in pennsylvania than this jerk wad congressman might get a clue, we can start with penzoil
I enlisted in the Air Force in 1969 and was assigned to an Air Refueling Squadron equipped with KC-135 tankers. I saw one of those same aircraft at an air show at Mt. Home AFB last September. It is a crime for our politicians to jeopardize the lives of our service members by forcing them to operate obsolete equipment. The same elected representatives who screwed up the last tanker deal are still in office. Why should we have the slightest confidence in their ability to do the right thing with a new contract? Rep. Murtha is suggesting a plan that wqould double the price to operate a new tanker fleet. Twice the training facilities, logistics, spare parts, proficiency and contract monitoring wil be required. This is not a jobs program, it is our national defense. SLP
Seeing how Boeing hasn't been able to deliver the Dreamliner on time what makes you think they will be able to build these tankers in a timely manner? I think splitting the contract is more than generous.
We need to stop rewarding contracts to companies that can't live up to it's promise, loyalty goes only to friends and family - everything else is just business, make them be competetive! No different than the bailout issues of today, put up or take bullwinkle for a spin...
Why on strike machinists are laid off when Boeing is lying its profit??? Boeing doesn't need to pay penalty for those company whose ordered the planes. When these machinists work their butts off while eating their Mrs. President's food services at the plant, the idiot President is making salary of 400 times more than a machinist. Come on~ when they can't figure out how to get the Dreamliner together with those wonderful "dream team" engineers~ What a company can do? "Profit oriented; Morally Bankrupt"
Boeing can't get their act together with the Dreamliner, has a 3,000 airplane backlog, is in constant disarray with its employees and fires employees because it is in so called 'financial turmoil' ... which one braincell in your mind makes you think that they pull off building more planes on time?
I'm all for jobs, but I'm also in favor of actually getting this job done.
Boeing should not even be considered for the tanker deal. They are years behind in filling their orders with commercial airlines. If they can't fill them then what makes people believe that they'd be able to complete the tanker deal on time.
Boeing is laying off employees when they should be hiring more people so they can complete the orders they are currently unable to fill. Boeing is lucky that the airlines who have ordered planes from them have not canceled their orders and demanded a refund of whatever money they have paid and take their business elsewhere. That's what I'd do.
A voice of reason:
1.) Airbus doesn't compete. Not when four governements fund the company and won't disclose how much funding they provide to Airbus. They do this because it is a jobs program. Boeing is not competing on a level playing field. The EU trys to argue that Boeing gets subsidized by the US government because they provide R&D funding. This is a total Strawman argument. The R&D funding is necessary for any new product and is a legimate funding item. We do it to the tune of 6 billion dollars for the oil industry and millions to agricultural companies like AMD. I'm not saying it's right in all cases, but it is done in several industries.
2.) These jobs will not only be for Washington State. They will provide jobs in many other states such as Kansas and California (CA's current unemployment rate is over 10%). The dream liner is an individual line of aircraft. Should the tanker deal come to Boeing they will provide a new line that may or may not be built in WA. It will provide way more jobs in the United States than Airbus jobs would ever provide. Most of the Airbus jobs will be in Europe. Please do not be mistaken about this.
3.) Wake up US, the Airplane industy is one of the last vestiages of American industry still going strong. Why in the world would we deal a blow to it by selecting it's only competitor for a 40 billion contract paid by US taxpayers. It's like we are trying to commit industry suicide with the decisions being made on these contracts.
4.) Just because Boeing has made some bad decisions recently, doesn't wipe out all the good decisions they've made. Please step back and use some common sense and realize we need to keep these high paying jobs in the US. I would even be okay with Boeing building a new facility in the South to build the tanker and provide jobs rather than the contract going to Airbus. We need to do all we can to strengthen those industries that are strong in the US, not weaken them. Right now these jobs are needed here more than ever!!
DebA