USAF picks EADS for tanker

Its probably the best decision to pick the newest and most-efficient technology, given how long the Air Force tends to hang on to tankers.

That said, I think this'll bear-out more engineering work for the A330's landing gear-to-wing joint strength.

That further said, France better shut its Tarte-hole for a long time. :mad:
 
The decision was based mostly on two factors.

One: Boeing already had the contract but when it came out they cheated in getting it and a couple people went to jail over it, the contract was taken away. McCain was the one who launched the probe and sat on top of the contract until it was taken from Boeing

Two: The new tanker will have multi roles which is the new way of saying "please build this thing on the cheap". Also now the project, 35-40billion, will be paid in dollars and EADS will surely renegotiate the rate because of the downward trend of the dollar.
 
I was fairly confident that there is no way that Boeing (The US option) would never get the contract after the scam debacle. Saying the contract went to LM is BS -- the vast majority of this money is going straight out or the US and much of it will go to countries that have proven to be fair weather allies at best. To me that contracting officer and her cohorts should be re-tried for treason.

Seriously. At a time when we are dumping out tax rebates in an effort to help stimulate our economy why are we giving the biggest aviation contract the AF will let for the next decade or more to the French? It should be referred to as the European Aviation worker security act.

Who exactly are we punishing for Boeings misdeeds? Blue collar US aviation workers? US Engineers? US truck drivers?

This really is outrageous.
 
OK I know most American Flags and such are made in China or Mexico.. But wasnt there supposed to me a standing law still in effect saying that Government items ( IE uniforms, buildings, supplies, aircraft etc) must be made in America and could not be produced in another country?

I remember hearing that and remembering the huge up roar when people found out that most Flags are made in Mexico.
 
The problem with the Airbus (and all you have to be is observant) is that they work good when they're new, but they don't age well.

And EADS has a nasty habit of selling they cheap and then gouging you when you need parts for the beasts.

Aside from the fact that its generally a VERY BAD idea to depend on a foreign government(s) for your defense supplies.
 
Velocipede said:
The problem with the Airbus (and all you have to be is observant) is that they work good when they're new, but they don't age well.

And EADS has a nasty habit of selling they cheap and then gouging you when you need parts for the beasts.

Aside from the fact that its generally a VERY BAD idea to depend on a foreign government(s) for your defense supplies.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

there is something really stinky out there. USAF doesnt have enough money to buy enough Raptors, and they go for the expensive option?
We will have to pay for cost overruns when the dollar slides further. Also, this flies in the face of EADS WTO argument that defense contracts equal an unfair subisidy to Boeing. Yet EADS is owned in large part but the French government, who lends them launch money. This is utter BS. heads should roll over this...
I wouldnt at all be surprised if bush and sarkozy worked out a deal of some sorts.
 
Velocipede said:
The problem with the Airbus (and all you have to be is observant) is that they work good when they're new, but they don't age well.

And EADS has a nasty habit of selling they cheap and then gouging you when you need parts for the beasts.

Aside from the fact that its generally a VERY BAD idea to depend on a foreign government(s) for your defense supplies.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Lots of talk across the tracks about this today on 123.45.

I don't care if they're actually built in some congressman's backyard, it's a bad idea to outsource materiel.

At least in my humble opinion.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Absolutely.

Lots of talk across the tracks about this today on 123.45.

I don't care if they're actually built in some congressman's backyard, it's a bad idea to outsource materiel.

At least in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

...so, what's next Toyota or Mercedes as goverment cars/trucks?

Armored BMW-7 series for the presidents motorcade?

I really don't agree with this decsion...if you can't tell!
 
As far as the jobs go, I believe the aircraft will be assembled near Mobile, Alabama. Not saying I defend the choice of EADS, but in reality a similar amount of jobs would have been created/maintained with a Boeing contract. Much of Boeing's component work has been shifted to places like Japan and Europe (among European contractors, some EADS companies believe it or not) and even China. There might have been slightly more American jobs than the EADS bid, but not an appreciable difference.
 
Velocipede said:
The problem with the Airbus (and all you have to be is observant) is that they work good when they're new, but they don't age well.

And EADS has a nasty habit of selling they cheap and then gouging you when you need parts for the beasts.

Aside from the fact that its generally a VERY BAD idea to depend on a foreign government(s) for your defense supplies.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Keep that thought in the back of your mind. It can possibly come back to bite us severely in the future.
 
scramjet said:
As far as the jobs go, I believe the aircraft will be assembled near Mobile, Alabama. Not saying I defend the choice of EADS, but in reality a similar amount of jobs would have been created/maintained with a Boeing contract. Much of Boeing's component work has been shifted to places like Japan and Europe (among European contractors, some EADS companies believe it or not) and even China. There might have been slightly more American jobs than the EADS bid, but not an appreciable difference.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Guys, I know a lot of you are smarter than me in the airline world but what scramjet wrote is true. I used to do this for a living (manufacturing/certifying) its not as cut and dry as "They took our jawbs!"
 
scramjet said:
As far as the jobs go, I believe the aircraft will be assembled near Mobile, Alabama. Not saying I defend the choice of EADS, but in reality a similar amount of jobs would have been created/maintained with a Boeing contract. Much of Boeing's component work has been shifted to places like Japan and Europe (among European contractors, some EADS companies believe it or not) and even China. There might have been slightly more American jobs than the EADS bid, but not an appreciable difference.
Click to expand...

Its a bad deal for the US. Sure well get some mid level jobs out of the contract, but the majority of the profits are going straight to the EU. Its a sad day when a US company is outbid by foreign competition for a military contract.
 
I don't think it's a matter of jobs, I think it's a matter of national security.

This is HIGHLY hypothetical and not fully thought through... but say we have a military conflict brewing with Kosovo that grows into a wider conflict with Russia. We need to ramp up materiel production because it's going to be a doozy. But the EU nations that comprise EADS don't support the conflict and are protesting by ceasing production.

What do you do?
 
Doug Taylor said:
I don't think it's a matter of jobs, I think it's a matter of national security.

This is HIGHLY hypothetical and not fully thought through... but say we have a military conflict brewing with Kosovo that grows into a wider conflict with Russia. We need to ramp up materiel production because it's going to be a doozy. But the EU nations that comprise EADS don't support the conflict and are protesting by ceasing production.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

Ah I think I see your point on that. You'll find that when a product is first coming out the military won't replace the their fleet until that product is finished. Unfortunately, the reality is this tanker is badly needed to place the KC-135s, but the in box thinking goes something like this. If production were to cease on the new EADS tanker we should be able to complete a 2 front campaign with our current fleet. Once EADS is done we can effectively replace the KC-135's. That doesn't mean the tankers won't be pushed into service but the military hopes to not be banking on a tanker project that is partway finished.

PS. Also it should be pointed out that this project should have been done years ago Boeing is mostly to blame for it. Bribing a member of the US Airforce to sweeten the pot on a deal that was ALREADY(!!) sewed up... I'm glad they sent the gal from the airforce to jail but i woulda brought a caravan of paddy wagons to Chicago and started hauling Boeing execs out left and right and had a public beating.
 
This may the Air Force's way of telling Boeing to bring a better bid to the table next time...

Seems the Air Force a 5 point rating system & the Airbus won 4 out of the 5 points...

One comment that I read was that the Air Force actually liked the bigger size of the A330 while Boeing was telling the Air Force they (Air Force) did not need the bigger size....

Also, for future risk, the Air Force would have been the only customer for the 767, that probably made the Air Force nervous as Boeing has a habit of cancelling programs, even with orders in place, while Airbus is willing to keep the production line alive...

717, 757, MD11 were just a couple of lines that were closed, even with orders.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top