Replies

Well,, it’s still a foreign machine. And strictly speaking as John Q. Public here, Boeing has a HUGE track record, going back to the 1930s, that i think should be heavily weighted before giving the Europeans such a plum. I’m thinking B-17, B-29, KB=50 (Americas first tanker) B-47, B-52, KC-135, etc.

Besides, i want to see airbus weaker,, i always worry a little when i get on one. Tail fell off the one in Newark, then this one out of Brazil.

Just telling you my opinion from the peanut gallery. It’s some of the problem that Airbus must deal with, image.

5 posted on 03/08/2010 5:49:57 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)

Well,, it’s still a foreign machine.

To be precise, it's a 60% American machine vs. a 80% American machine (Boeing).

And strictly speaking as John Q. Public here, Boeing has a HUGE track record, going back to the 1930s, that i think should be heavily weighted before giving the Europeans such a plum. I’m thinking B-17, B-29, KB=50 (Americas first tanker) B-47, B-52, KC-135, etc.

Except that the Boeing proposal is a mesh-up of different 767 variants which in this combination has never flown. The tanker equipment is also unproven. A different 767 tanker proposal for Japan and Italy (you know, the 20 non-American percent) suffered from massive delays. Yes, Boeing has a huge track record, but design-wise the Airbus is definitely lower risk.