Posted on 03/08/2008 4:24:09 AM PST by tobyhill
The truth hurts.
Spot on, FRiend.
Agreed. Boeing sokd a major manufacturing facility in Wichita to a Canadian firm about 2 years ago -- a lot of folks here blame McCain for that and I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to say it was one of the reasons Huckabee took Kansas in the primaries.
Many Kansas congresscritters are out there calling for investigations on the Airbus deal... all of them republicans.
I wouldn't be suprised if Kansas went blue in the general.
From what I “heard” airbus has never built a tanker and is years behind on the ones being produced for Australia.
I find the treads here rather amusing. A year ago there was nothing but praise for Boeing and disdain for Airbus over commercial airlines. Everyone was cheering the great Boeing product and running down the Airbus product. Day by day, week by week acclaim for Boeing getting deals.
All this is very confusing.
It was a $23 billion lease. The lease was competititvely priced, but it was naturally rather expensive compared to buying the planes. The whole point of the lease was to get the planes faster and in service faster with lower upfront costs. Of course one of the things embedded in the cost of a lease is interest. One thing government cand do cheaper than anyone else is borrow money. People will accept T-Bills with lower interest rates than corporate bonds, because they are perceived as being almost zero risk. A lease imbeds the cost of borrowing money from the private sector into the lease payments.
Another part of the lease cost was that it included the cost of Boeing developing the tanker variant rather than amortizing across the whole production run. A big part of the problem is that tankers tend to be long lasting capital goods that have lower utilization rates than equivalent vintage commercial aircraft. Paying that much for 100 planes on a ten year lease doesn't make much financial sense for the federal government compared to an airline that can use similar equipment to generate income. After the lease, the federal government still doesn't own the planes. For an airline, that's not a problem, because they could lease newer planes with better capabilites, and they can also fully deduct the cost of the lease from their taxable income each year rather than having to amortize a fleet over a much longer period than they actually want to have a fleet in their service. The federal government doens't pay income taxes, so the deductbility of lease payments is of no benefit to them.
Yes there was corruption involving a Boeing employee and an Air Force officer who was offered a job at Boeing while she was working on the procurement contract for the lease of 767 tankers. Boeing also gave her daugter a job. What does get forgotten in all this is that if the offered lease or a renegotiated lease or purchase agreement had accepted, the USAF would already have about 100 new tankers that are much more capable than the KC-135 tankers they would have replaced, and they would be in use today in Iraq and Afghanistan not ten years from now.
Somebody should remind the critics from Boeing that two of their former executives are in jail due to rigged contract awards.
And in this latest award Boeing’s bid fell short in five of five Source Selection Criteria.
(”Fell Short” means they scored lower than EADS)
It’s tough to have to play on a level playing field, but Boeing brought the additional scrutiny on itself.
The tankers are going to be built right here in Mobile, AlSome of the parts are going to come from overseas, just like some of the parts of boeing planes do..
The last time I checked Mobile was in Alabama, not overseas.These planes will be built at the old Brookley Air Force Base
Lots and lots of cubical dwellers that do ? {lots of coffee drinking that I can tell of}
Wrong—the planes are French. They will put the tanks in them in Mobile.
Everyone keeps posting that there will be thousands and thousands of jobs created. I don’t buy it.
It don’t take that many people to put tanks on planes.
They have now.
As for contract slippage, it's not something Boeing should mention
Italian contact signed July 01 for delivery 05, Japanese contact signed April 03 for delivery 07
Both are now scheduled for 08.
Meanwhile Australian KC-30B contract signed Dec 04 for IOC 09, should still meet the deadline
DEY TURK MUH JEEEERRRRRRRBBBBBBB!
The Democrats are turning into the image of Pat Buchanan right before my eyes. They hate Israel, they hate fighting back against Islamic Supremacists, and they hate capitalism. And as Mark Foley showed, they’re not above gay-bashing either.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080308_5_E1_NTZAs01316
This is why Boeing can't aquire new or maintain current contracts or orders. Northrup plans on hiring over 23,000 American workers for this project whereas Boeing probably would have hired half that then put the other half from current staff or even use foreign suppliers.
***Today, Boeing and Boeing supplier partners have active supplier contracts with China's aviation industry valued at well over $2.5 billion. Today, there are more than 4500 Boeing airplanes flying throughout the world with parts and assemblies built by China.***
I live down here in Mobile and believe me we are just as American, if not more so, then those folks in WA.....Every expert that looked at the competition says it was fair, open and honest and boo hoo, boeing thought being the pocket of all of pols would get the contract, no questions asked!It’s getting a whole lot tiresome to keep hearing these folks trash us here in AL...heck, even the NYT came out in support of NG-EADS....saying the american war fighter deserves the best that $ can buy....
This might help
http://republicans.armedservices.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=426
http://republicans.armedservices.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=427
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.