- Senator John McCain talking at a stop on Tuesday in St. Louis. - He took credit for breaking a tanker deal with Boeing in 2004. - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12tanker.html
Posted on 02/25/2011 7:16:37 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
- Senator John McCain talking at a stop on Tuesday in St. Louis. - He took credit for breaking a tanker deal with Boeing in 2004. - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12tanker.html
The NYSlimes, of course, reprinted it during the 2008 campaign.
What? You are comparing GM with Boeing? Details, please.
How do you say “Bite me!” in French and German?
Is there a Western European nation whose national airline awarded a contract to Boeing for the bulk of their commercial airliners. Of course not, they all order Airbus. Suck it up Europe. What comes around, goes around.
Is there a Western European nation whose national airline awarded a contract to Boeing for the bulk of their commercial airliners. Of course not, they all order Airbus. Suck it up Europe. What comes around, goes around.
The Tanker award is a disgrace.
Yep. It was STOLEN! Unions and sleazy politicians cheated the rightful winner.
Enjoy your overpriced tankers, American taxpayers!
Yeah, EADS had a better product and would have created more than a thousand non-union jobs in Alabama. But Boeing had more tame Congressmen.
Boeing got feather-bedded here. They have no incentive to build a better product: all they need to do to win tenders is to own more politicans and wave a flag. Disgusting.
But watch as some FReepers cheer this ‘victory’.
That’s a point a lot of folks seem to be missing. Boeing is about as bloated and inefficient as Airbus/EADS can be. And what makes it worse is that it’s captive domestic market is several times that of the EADS. And it’s gotten bigger two days ago.
Of course, the one reason why I would support Boeing not LOSING this contract is the importance of having retaining American resources in a vital field.
British Airways is almost entirely Boeing, has been for many years.
It's simply a counter accusation with no real basis but grabs the headlines and obfuscate the issue.
Airbus for years has been receiving massive subsidies. Boeing receiving defense contracts for dedicated defense platforms as does EADS hardly represents a subsidy as Airbus receives for the development of airframes intended for the commercial market. Hell, the origin of the organization Airbus, it's CREATION is from state money and the merging of nationally owned aerospace firms and the entire business model of Airbus rewards those nations who subsidize by basing manufacturing there. The more you subsidize, the more manufacturing is based in your country. Years past it was near gross watching how Airbus was given preferential treatment by all the at that time nationally held airlines that of course bought the nationally owned and subsidized airplane builders plane........ At Frankfurt International, an airport majority owned by the combination of federal, state of Hessen and city of Frankfurt so called private business, you of course have the hub for Lufthansa (until the late 90s a nationally owned firm) and hangers paid for through tax money.......it's sick and you see politicians within the European political sphere go back and forth within the EADS/Airbus worlds because in reality this is pseudo private firm. No, EADS/Airbus is an obscenity, a disgusting example of where government is in bed with business and Boeing for decades has not had a fair shake in Europe. That alone is reason for a big “nein” or “non” and them complaining is ironic.
Completely!
Sort of.
Many of these airlines, like Lufthansa, Air France, etc indeed were nationally or still are nationally owned in some cases. Boeing products of course still sold since Airbus for the logest time didn’t have airframes that met specific demands in capcity, range etc (They started out with smaller and short range airframes), but especially in the past when you had a greater nationalized air carrier system in Europe you did see a strong Airbus bias among them.
Maybe you are right, maybe you’re not, but it isn’t the law.
Uhh, it is. The "Buy American" Act of 1933, as amended in 1981 requires the U.S. to treat firms based in NATO countries the same as U.S.-based companies.
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.