« RIP: Boyd Coddington, Hot Rod Impresario | Main | An Appreciation of Snowcats, Snowcat Design, and Snowcat Operation »

29 February 2008

Comments

if european nations are capable of buying F-16s and F-35s, shouldn't the US be able to swallow its pride and buy A330s if they're the better aircraft?

the 767 design is a quarter of a century old. given that these tankers are probably going to be serving the air force for 50 years or more, can they really be blamed for wanting the more modern design?

i'm kind of surprised that boeing would expect the air force to go for such an old design just because it is domestic.

and what's wrong at boeing?

lost the JSF contract. lost market leader position to airbus. unethical conduct on tanker leasing. industrial espionage against lockheed.

if it weren't for for the delays on the 787 dreamliner, couldn't a 787 variant be in the running for this contract? the 787 is meant to replace the 767 after all.

silly boeing.

There go more American jobs overseas.

I think there's two issues underlying this. 1: US companies believing the hype that the USA is the only country which can build high-tech stuff. 2: The US forgetting that we live in a global economy and prudential financial practice requiring any organisation, including the USAF, to choose the best option available.

Here in Australia there are very interesting questions being raised about the purchase of 24 Super Hornets by the previous defence minister which the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) itself did not want! By an odd coincidence, the chairman of Boeing Australia just happened to be a previous leader of the political party which was in power at the time.

Not that there would every be any corruption in defence procurement, no!

NAFTA and the buying of Americas manufacturing complex is well and doing fine under the republican administration. Another casualty is Boeing which lost its bid to sell 767 tankers to the air force after years of delays. The decision had to come from the top after all the Boeing 767 Tankers were going to cost 35 million dollars less per plane than the Airbus A330. This was another European give away to buy what little support they can get from the ungrateful Europeans and especially the French for the current administrations failed Iraq policy. In this case Bush has given another manufacturing business away to the ones who despise us the most, the French. Northrop Grumman by complaining all these years has finally won a piece of the pie with there European teammates but most of the jobs and money will end up overseas. Once again this is another case of the current republican administration continuing sending jobs overseas.

So the europeans spend decades buying american airplanes and we just say that we were looking for best deal quality/price, now you guys spend a misery of 40 Billions an you wine and cry loud .....bhaaa....bunch of p....,
40 billion its nothing over all those years besides a plant will be made in Alabama ....and I never heard that the US made a plant for the jets that spain, norway, holland, portugal, greece, etc etc have ....again ....you cry in some coutries like china for opening their trade barriers and now you want to make one in US ....pathetic ...go take a cold shower..

One man, Medal of Honor recipient Hershel "Woody" Williams, thinks the Pentagon snub of Boeing was a terrible decision, and I agree. Why? In part, because I trust Boeing employees -- including many friends and neighbors -- far more than I trust any individual, corporate or government interests in France or the European Union. Congress needs to revisit and reverse this decision immediately.

Size does matter, I have been to three wars with our KC-135's. We were deployed in countries where we did not have a lot of ramp space. And what we use to call (The Gucci Boys KC-10's ) could never use the same strips as our 135's . Not because of runway length but of ramp space. Other countries still want to use their own airports to fly and operate. So now you have a bigger tanker but fewer places to deploye it. One last comment we have stoped making and Mfg real products. We Import so much now if we go to war with anyone but in the middle east we would have to ask them (China) to make some of our military parts. Like large castings for tanks.And big deal 1500 jobs in Alabama vs 15,000 americans with Boieng. Maybe it is time to change our politics and vote a new party in. Retired USAF

Our one rule for air travel is if it isn't Boeing, I am not going.
We don't like Airbus, since we don't like the idea of HAL 9000 flying the aircraft.
Plus, Airbus makes ugly looking planes.

"1500 jobs in Alabama vs 15,000 americans".

So Airbus can build with 1500 what it takes Boeing 15000? Maybe that's why they got the contract.

Don't forget all of the suppliers like GE.

Let the boring beating of the drums continue. Yawn.

It is a good thing that Northrop Gruman and Airbus got this contract. The folks at the Pentagon have one responsibility, that is to acquire the best equipment for their troops to save lives and allow the U.S. armed forces to protect U.S. interests. It is that simple.

It was WIDELY known in the defense community that the Boeing 767 based tanker was markedly inferior to the Airbus 330 based tanker. It wasn't even close. You read any independent analysis and they all say the same thing. The Airbus 330 could carry more fuel, faster and farther than the Boeing 767.

Think about it. The people in the pentagon were under tremendous political pressure to select the Boeing system and they aren't stupid, they knew the political fall-out that would happen if they picked the Airbus 330. YET, the 330 was SO superior that they felt there was no other rational choice but to go with Airbus.

Given this obvious superiority of the Airbus 330 tanker, I am glad that the pentagon picked this model. Would you rather we reward a company for offering an obviously inferior product? Shame on you Boeing. Shame on you for creating a poor product and expecting to get chosen because you are an American company.

Our American troops deserve better.

It is a good thing that Northrop Gruman and Airbus got this contract. The folks at the Pentagon have one responsibility, that is to acquire the best equipment for their troops to save lives and allow the U.S. armed forces to protect U.S. interests. It is that simple.

It was WIDELY known in the defense community that the Boeing 767 based tanker was markedly inferior to the Airbus 330 based tanker. It wasn't even close. You read any independent analysis and they all say the same thing. The Airbus 330 could carry more fuel, faster and farther than the Boeing 767.

Think about it. The people in the pentagon were under tremendous political pressure to select the Boeing system and they aren't stupid, they knew the political fall-out that would happen if they picked the Airbus 330. YET, the 330 was SO superior that they felt there was no other rational choice but to go with Airbus.

Given this obvious superiority of the Airbus 330 tanker, I am glad that the pentagon picked this model. Would you rather we reward a company for offering an obviously inferior product? Shame on you Boeing. Shame on you for creating a poor product and expecting to get chosen because you are an American company.

Our American troops deserve better.

It is obvious that by basing their design on the 767, Boeing brought a knife to a gunfight.Why didn't they base their proposal on the 777?
Anyway, my neighborhood has been devastated since 1968 when LBJ closed Brookley AFB where these KC-30s will be assembled. Now we have hope for the future.
It sure has been funny watching all the local "conservatives" who have railed against anything european for years sucking up to the Airbus folks. Wonder if they will serve "freedom fries" in the EADS cafeteria?

yeah, I was amazed that Boeing didn't use the 787 -- or at least the 777 -- as a platform.

A330-200 is an old technology, it was derived from A300 Model.

767 Model is not that Obsolete design . The later will have up to date Avionics .

767 Model has been a work horse for the Airliners .

The A300 and A330 Models have had many reliability problems in service .

Who can convince us that the A330-200 with full load can take off at shorter runway than the 767-200 Tanker version ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Follow TelstarLogistic on Twitter
@telstarlogistic is on the Twitter

Telstar Logistics Imaging Systems

  • www.flickr.com
    All pictures.
    All the time.
    Without so many words and stuff.

Contact the Department of Public Affairs

Related Posts with Thumbnails