Posted on 02/27/2008 12:07:08 PM PST by skeptoid
The latest on the Boeing vs. Northrop-EADS competition to supply 179 tankers to the U.S. Air Force...
Sue Payton, assistant secretary for acquisition, told Reuters on Wednesday, after a hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on the Air Force 2009 budget request, that the winner of the Air Force tanker competition is likely to be announced on Friday, after the markets close.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
At least they have modern tanker aircraft.
And it will be a huge production run for the A330-200F, since the likes of DHL, FedEx, TNT N.V. and UPS own a lot of larger cargo planes that are rapidly aging. With increasingly strict air safety rules on the African continent, that could put a lot of ex-Soviet era Russian cargo planes out of business, and the A330-200F could be a modern plane for transporting cargo around the African continent. The potential for the Mobile, AL factory to build as many as 1,000 A330-200F/KC-30 planes over the next 25 years is quite real.
Yes, the KC135 as well as the KC10 have served well.
However, going into the future, when one compares the specs of the “KC767” prototype re-fueler to the “KC330” prototype re-fueler, the KC767 (At least on paper any way) comes up short.
Only after flight trials are conducted and the resultant data analyzed will the AF be able to make an informed, logical decision.
“Are the Italians refueling our B52s now?<
At least they have modern tanker aircraft.”
That is a picture of Italy unit 1. It is the first 767 tanker A/C built. It was the first time we passed gas to a B-52. We delivered Japan unit 1 last week and will deliver Japan unit 2 next week. We spent a lot of hours out in the dark and cold making those airplanes work. First class airplanes and fun to fly in. The remote vision system/ refueling system is something you would just have to see to appreciate
We have Japan unit 3 in the hanger under going mod along with Italy 2 and Italy 4. EADS has delivered nothing nor have they passed any gas.
best regards
“Only after flight trials are conducted and the resultant data analyzed will the AF be able to make an informed, logical decision.”
Dog we have already delivered advanced 767 tankers. The japanese have taken delivery of two this month. Beautiful airplanes. If you want a point by point comparison between Boeing and EADS tankers I can help you with that.
Not required,
If you’ve gone through and are satisfied, that’s good enough for me.
They weren't forced. And where was McCain et al when McDonnel Douglas took over Boeing (the reality of the so called merger which Boeing Share holders paid for!)
In fact, Boeing gave the American taxpayer the best deal imaginable. The assertions about excessive cost that McCain's stooges made turns out to have been 100% wrong.
We would have got 100 planes...for $18 billion. NOW...it will be $40 billion.
As for the corruption issue, yes, it was real. But how much of that was in reaction to EADs already attempting to bribe its way in back then? I submit that they may have felt they had no choice. They thought they should fight fire with fire.
Now Boeing's CEO and the DOD official are both in jail, and EADS is merrily bribing away, having enlisted Northrup Grumman into its little club of liars and cheats...and bribers... and is not having any of its goons going to jail. Moral of the story: You need to pay off John McCain, like EADs/Airbus did.
As long as the military didn't have other viable choices, Boeing didn't seem inclined to root out it's internal problems.
Wrong AGAIN. Why not simply enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act?... That would also sanction EADS/Airbus as the monopolies they are BTW.
In total refutation of your thesis, you fail to either be aware or admit Boeing paid a $610 MILLION DOLLAR FINE for its solitary misdeed!
As for the rest of your innuendo, I would advise you to note these points I have been making elsewhere:
This contract award to EADs and its front-men at NG stinks. Remember why there was a forced competition in the first place.
Price.
That is what Senators John McCain and John Warner claimed at the time anyways when they forced it.
And in this competition...Boeing BEAT NG/EADs on price.
Hand's down.
So.....with the award going to the significantly HIGHER BID something else appears to be going on.
Before you jump all over Boeing for being both corrupt and somehow less competitive, you need to read this series of points about EADS:
(1) EADs corruption.I don't like seeing EADs vying for this contract, but between Boeing and NGC, NGC is by far the more reputable company.It is simply overwhelming and incontrovertible.
Note this prestigious defense policy group, led by Frank Gaffney (fmr Deputy Sec. Defense) warning about EADS:
To my knowledge and based on many recent news reports about their refusal to formally investigate the latest EADs scandal erupting at the end of 2007 with the Eurofighter in its Austrian lobbying arm...they haven't "cleaned up their act" ....at all. Where, oh where is your outrage? [Crickets chirping]
(2) Boeing beat EADS on price.
As noted by:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Troy Lahr said in a research note it was surprising the Northrop-EADS team won given the estimated $35 million per-plane savings offered by Boeing. Lahr estimated the Boeing aircraft would have cost $125 million apiece. “It appears the (Air Force) chose capabilities over cost,” Lahr said.That observation skirts the real grim reality. The whole purported reason for this interminable competition IN THE FIRST PLACE by Senators John McCain and John Warner was to get the BEST PRICE. Now that is suddenly out the window, and NOW they are touting a BIGGER PLANE as their raison'detre.
Think about that. If they had specced a bigger plane in the RFP, Boeing easily could have trumped this whole thing with a 777-based proposal. Instead the Air Force gave no real guidance in that regard when Boeing suggested it could offer such. They got absolutely no serious feedback whatsoever.
This has every sign of being a political bushwhack.
And for your information, McCain has been receiving, and NOT returning many thousands of dollars of Airbus monies for his campaigns...this despite one showy claim he would return EADs (American PAC) paltry $5,000 contribution. EADs has many tentacles to deliver its bribes. And I assure you they went far higher than that $5,000.00.
You furthermore make a big deal out of unions and taxes, etc...(all potential concerns of course) but failed to confront the simple fact that Boeing submitted the unquestionably best price.
How did you miss this? Why did you miss it? Simple bias?
Please. Don't be an anti-American marionette on this.
And to that end, for God's sake don't buy the apologists claims that the EADs Airbus-tanker will be 58% made in the U.S. ...what a pant-load. They are saying this primarily for two reasons
1. To induce political splintering over defense and in particular, gain factional support in Congress, i.e, most particularly Jeff Sessions' Alabama delegation. And also, and quite tellingly,2. To meet the legal requirements. I.e., U.S. DOD procurement requirements for the production being at least 50% U.S. content. Now since the plane is essentially an entirely European manufactured product which they will only modify "reassemble" here, they have a real credibility gap issue about getting up to 58% U.S. content. Granted, there will be some U.S. avionics, structural upgrades and fuel tanks retrofitted with their flying booms. But those aren't 58%. No way.
This does not pass the smell test. And your critical faculties should be on red alert about this.
(3) The Boeing Plane was More Competitive on Operations Cost.
The KC-767 fuel efficiency was significantly better than the A-330. 24% better. And that is the primary operations cost nowadays with fuel being what it is. Due to its superior fuel efficiency, the KC-767 has lower life cycle costs and would have saved an estimated $10 billion in fuel costs for the first 179 tankers when compared to the EADS� plane. Additionally, the KC-767 is projected to save $8.5 billion in operating and support costs versus the current KC-135. Note General Thomas Ryan's observations here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004194635_boeingtanker22.html
(4) Less Risk. and most militarily useful aircraft.
Beyond the clear operational history advantage that the 737 holds over the A-330 base models, the fact is that they were almost immediately available for replacements of the decrepit and dangerously aged U.S. tanker fleet. And now that we have order details from the USAF, we see that the KC-135Es will start being retired as soon as possible despite KC-45As not arriving for another 6 years. The first one won't enter service until 2013.
By the time the final ones of the KC-135s are retired circa 2040 they will have been in service for more than 80 years in some cases.
Think about that. This WAS a political fix. The 5 criteria being met "with flying colors" by Airbus just reeks to high heaven. No if, no buts. This sounds like spin-control from the get-go by the Administration.
My conclusion: The USAF general currently in charge was simply ORDERED to say this. As we all know, Clinton did this same excrable abuse of power too. Bush has been doing it with the Law of the Sea Treaty...and now the Air tanker too.
(5) "Flexibility" Advantage goes to Boeing's Design. NOT the EADs proposal.
If you are going to maintain a force of fighters and ancillary aircraft over a war zone, especially with Continuous Air Patrol requirements, you cannot do the tanking at distant removes, and hence you need to have wide flexibility in landing capabilities for your tankers. So that they can also stay close to the action. The Boeing design was able to land at significantly more landing strips than the Airbus design. And especially in the Middle East where much of the action currently is. It has been quantified as being up to a 67% advantage for the KC-737 over the A-330.
Again General Thomas Ryan's comments are quite definitive here:
"Its (KC767) smaller size also allows a higher maximum number of tankers at typically smaller airfields, thereby putting more booms in the sky. This capability is critical to how America will fight wars in the future.
Quite simply, flexibility is the key to airpower. But that flexibility is in danger of being confused with capacity.
No one will deny that EADS, Airbus' parent, and Northrop Grumman offer a bigger tanker than Boeing's.
If selected, the KC-30 would be the second-largest aircraft in the Air Force's inventory (53 percent larger than the KC-767AT). Its footprint on the tarmac, at 38,000 square feet, severely restricts the number that can be accommodated at many small airfields."
Attempting to counter these facts, the NG-EADs lobbyinsts dumped a lot of disinformation recently about how putting these tankers out in the extreme zones goes against the operational guidelines of the Air Force, and we won't have tankers going in harms way. Those are just not the facts. To wit:
Read here: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi.../1993/articles/jan_93/jana_93.html "Most people may think that tankers just fly around in safe areas during wartime, never getting too close to danger. The Gulf War disproved this notion. One of the vital lessons of our experience over there was the vulnerability of tankers," explains Col. Bill Sherer, the commander of the 161st Air Refueling Group of the Arizona ANG.
Not anymore it isn't.
Not in any of the pertinent issues...
(1) Price. Boeings was $35 million cheaper per plane in just the preliminary acquisition cost.(2) Boeing's plane was 24% more fuel efficient.
(3)Further cost savings were ongoing: Boeings would have saved us over $10 billion in operational cost advantages alone.
(4) Boeing had more landing strip flexibility, an issue for those informed that was truly significant...and should have been devastating.
For all these reasons to be so cavalierly ignored by this administration and it Pentagon procurement General makes it clear to me that the fix was in.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Thanks for the ping!
Boeing would have never bid anywhere near that low if not for competition from NGC. I don't like McCain, but he was correct in that regard.
As for the corruption issue, yes, it was real. But how much of that was in reaction to EADs already attempting to bribe its way in back then?
The reason that they lost the original $23 billion dollar contract is because they were caught bribing the procurement official that was reviewing the bids.
Did EADS somehow have something to do with the separate instance where Boeing illegally stole 25,000 documents from Lockheed when they were competing in a rocket launch program?
Was EADS involved in the overcharging scandal involving surveillance aircraft?
We aren't talking about an isolated incident. There was widespread problems in Boeing's management.
I'm not saying that Boeing's defense branch was rotten to the core. I know a number of good, honest people who work for Boeing. However, there were significant parts of Boeing management that were simply out of control. Out of control enough that they took actions that could justifiably destroyed the company as a defense contractor by getting them banned from submitting bids.
I suspect that the only reason they were not banned from even submitting a bid for the tanker program was because the air force was worried that they wouldn't have any other viable options. NGC with the help of EADS America was able to provide a viable alternative.
Wrong AGAIN. Why not simply enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act?... That would also sanction EADS/Airbus as the monopolies they are BTW.
Huh? EADS isn't a monopoly. Boeing is very competitive in the commercial market. In most aspects of the military market EADS isn't really even competitive. They were able to be competitive in the tanker market thanks to NGC being the prime contractor, and Boeing having gotten caught cheating.
EADS does get considerably subsidies from European governments. However, that may be a valid issue for a trade dispute, but it doesn't make they a monopoly.
In total refutation of your thesis, you fail to either be aware or admit Boeing paid a $610 MILLION DOLLAR FINE for its solitary misdeed!
That's a big fine. However, were talking about contracts in the BILLIONS. It takes millions of dollars of these companies own money just to be able to submit a viable bid.
Corruption by EADs is another issue. It's a serious one, but in a lot of the world bribes to the government are considered part of doing business. They don't have the same way of doing business that we do. However, if American companies are competing for that business, we should take an interest in making sure the competition is fair, or at least the bribes are disclosed.
However, in regards to this tanker, what EADS brings to the table is an older, but reliable airframe. The development costs for the airframe have been spread out among a large number of units.
They will be assembled in the US. They will use a high percentage of American made parts. For example, the engines are made by GE.
EADS is not the major player in this contract. NGC will take that airframe an make it into a military tanker.
As for Boeing. As long as they clean up the problems, they will recover. They are a solid leader in commercial airplanes and solidly a major player in the defense industry. However, their recovery is up to them, and if they keep doing this kind of thing, they are going to lose a lot of critical people to other companies.
Meanwhile, this will allow EADS to build a manufacturing facility in the US. However, I'm not sure how much that will help them. About the only other kind of military aircraft I think they would be competitive on would be cargo aircraft, and even then I don't see them as being all that competitive unless Boeing continues to give the government reasons to prefer doing business with other companies.
and forgotten by the MSM and Talk Radio when they come back to work on Monday.
Wrong. They in fact DID with the earlier $18 billion contract.
The reason that they lost the original $23 billion dollar contract is because they were caught bribing the procurement official that was reviewing the bids.
Yeah, but Senators McCain and Warner talked explicitly about demanding competition over PRICE.
Did EADS somehow have something to do with the separate instance where Boeing illegally stole 25,000 documents from Lockheed when they were competing in a rocket launch program?
There corruption spans the entire realm of their activities. You are apparently not aware that they likely haven't gotten a single contract without bribery.
Was EADS involved in the overcharging scandal involving surveillance aircraft?
Tell us why we should care with your iterations of supposed misdeeds.
We aren't talking about an isolated incident. There was widespread problems in Boeing's management.
Yes. Fixed over 6 years ago, Chumley.
I'm not saying that Boeing's defense branch was rotten to the core. I know a number of good, honest people who work for Boeing.
That is what is known as faint praise.
And it isn't persuasive in the negative. None of your points are.
However, there were significant parts of Boeing management that were simply out of control. Out of control enough that they took actions that could justifiably destroyed the company as a defense contractor by getting them banned from submitting bids.
Actually, not true. Some contractors are too big to be allowed to fail. The appropriate punishment, rather than banning should have been the Sherman Antitrust act. Dissolving out the units that could be reformed into a clean company. Trust busting is something we Republicans used to champion as a necessity to preserve competition.
I suspect that the only reason they were not banned from even submitting a bid for the tanker program was because the air force was worried that they wouldn't have any other viable options.
No, you think? Anyways, that is ridiculous to continue the grudge. This is more than that. This is globalism on steroids.
NGC with the help of EADS America was able to provide a viable alternative.
B.S.
Huh? EADS isn't a monopoly.
It is essentially. A total monopoly on n European subsidies. And now the U.S government is being enlisted in subsidizing it.
Boeing is very competitive in the commercial market.
Only because it has to survive the cheating. Lying, and Bribing EADS/Airbus operation and home-town buying in Europe.
In most aspects of the military market EADS isn't really even competitive. They were able to be competitive in the tanker market thanks to NGC being the prime contractor, and Boeing having gotten caught cheating.
So it is okay for EADs to cheat. And a whole lot more than Boeing ever did.
EADS does get considerably subsidies from European governments. However, that may be a valid issue for a trade dispute, but it doesn't make they a monopoly.
Yes. It. Is. Look at their sales volume eclipsing Boeing's for five years. Never paying back a single penny of "launch loans."
And now getting another $4 billion infusion for their A-380.
That's a big fine. However, were talking about contracts in the BILLIONS.
So, EADS would just soak the taxpayers. Boeing being a private company for real, can't.
It takes millions of dollars of these companies own money just to be able to submit a viable bid.
Which is why this is all the more excrable.
Corruption by EADs is another issue. It's a serious one, but in a lot of the world bribes to the government are considered part of doing business. They don't have the same way of doing business that we do. However, if American companies are competing for that business, we should take an interest in making sure the competition is fair, or at least the bribes are disclosed. However, in regards to this tanker, what EADS brings to the table is an older, but reliable airframe. The development costs for the airframe have been spread out among a large number of units.
Those costs were totally subsisized by their governments. Boeing's weren't. And perhaps you were unaware that pursuant to a GATT deal, Boeing was coerced into transferring technology to Airbus? Gratis???!
They will be assembled in the US. They will use a high percentage of American made parts. For example, the engines are made by GE.
Great. But the planes aren't American. You can't change the sows ear into a silk purse.
EADS is not the major player in this contract. NGC will take that airframe an make it into a military tanker.
B.S. It is an European plane. Period. The frills added are not 58%. No way.
As for Boeing. As long as they clean up the problems, they will recover.
They did.
That may well have been the goal of those two Senators, though I don't have a lot of faith in the words that politicians say.
Regardless of the statements or intentions of those two Senators, the procurement officials that made this decision were likely weighing other factors as well. I don't know all the factors that were involved. Apparently NGC made an argument that having cargo carrying capability added flexibility that could create overall cost savings in an operation.
There corruption spans the entire realm of their activities. You are apparently not aware that they likely haven't gotten a single contract without bribery.
I've worked in the military avionics industry for over a decade, and some of the stuff I've seen Boeing pull were no better than direct bribery.
They of course aren't alone in disreputable actions among defense contractors, but they were among the worst if not the worst.
The do seem to be getting better, or at least less overt.
Tell us why we should care with your iterations of supposed misdeeds.
I wasn't listing "supposed" misdeeds. I was listing some of the things Boeing was caught doing. You made the excuse for Boeing that they may have been acting in response to corrupt actions by EADS, however they have been caught in programs where EADS wasn't competing.
Actually, not true. Some contractors are too big to be allowed to fail.
They are too big to be allowed to fail completely. However, they can get themselves banned from bidding on contracts for a particular type of product, or even a broader range of products. That has the effect of breaking up the company or forcing the key people to go elsewhere or form a new company.
It is essentially. A total monopoly on n European subsidies. And now the U.S government is being enlisted in subsidizing it.
I hate to break it to you, but European subsidies aren't exactly a market.
What market are you saying that EADS has a monopoly in? Commercial airplanes? Boeing sure seems competitive there. You can argue that EADS has an unfair advantage due to subsidies, but that is different from saying they are a monopoly. How about defense aircraft? What is the market in which you are suggesting EADS has monopoly power? What market do they have control over? In what market are customers not able to get a product made by another company?
EADS is a huge company that is partially a governmental entity as well. The fact that the French government plays such a large role is justification for making claims about unfair trade subsidies, but it doesn't make EADS a monopoly. EADS isn't even close to being a monopoly.
So it is okay for EADs to cheat. And a whole lot more than Boeing ever did.
Nope. It's not ok for EADS to cheat. However, you keep ignoring that EADS isn't the prime contractor, NGC is. You can justifiably say that there isn't a bid that doesn't have major components from a company with ethical issues.
The government needs to weigh those ethical issues and the likelihood that they will effect that particular project.
B.S. It is an European plane. Period. The frills added are not 58%. No way.
Well, I guess if the frills are nothing, we could just buy commercial A330s and call them tankers.
The largest part of the cost of any military aircraft is design costs, and the electronic systems are usually a large portion of the overall cost as well.
The reason for using a commercial airframe is that the design costs have already been spread out over a large quantities. This makes the airframe itself relatively inexpensive. EADs contribution is the airframe. The airframe won't even be assembled in Europe. It will be assembled in the US, using a considerable amount of US supplied parts.
Yes there will likely be a higher percentage of foreign parts than if the plane were made by Boeing, but this isn't a European plane, and the lion's share of the money from developing it and building it is going to remain in the United States.
NGC is going to take that commercial airframe, and turn it into a tanker. It will then be built in Alabama.
Irrelevant in the immediate point of the EADS/Airbus because they never pay those costs back anyways. Nor would EADS and Airbus still be alive but for constant bailouts. The A-380 SHOULD have been their death knell.
This makes the airframe itself relatively inexpensive.
Except it is $35 million MORE EXPENSIVE than the Boeing plane to procure. And now the EURO has just rocket up still higher against the dollar despite huge interventions trying to restrain it against the dollar. And those planes are denominated at some point not in dollars...but Euros.
EADs contribution is the airframe.
Not their exclusive contribution. Not hardly. See above.
The airframe won't even be assembled in Europe.
Wrong. It will be assembled in Europe...and flown over as a complete plane, for reconstruction into the tanker.
It will be assembled in the US, using a considerable amount of US supplied parts.
No replacement for the capacity to build the airframe.
Yes there will likely be a higher percentage of foreign parts than if the plane were made by Boeing, but this isn't a European plane,
Wrong. EADS is the silent controlling partner.
and the lion's share of the money from developing it and building it is going to remain in the United States.
No. Explain all of the EADS money and agents agushing around McCain and the Pentagon.
No, the estimates are that at least 10% OF ALL the monies, the lion's share of the profits will be going to EADs profits.
The fact is that NGC is a token, a figure head, and at best a stooge, a mere front for EADs in this bid.
If EADS is allowed to demand higher prices for its airframe over time as the dollar continues its death spiral, then you know that the economic grounds for doing this EADS deal were never in play. This was a fix. And there is no question that EADS will take ALL the profits for its airframe. So we are helping subsidize the European monopoly. A monopoly you fail to recognize. And the capacity of the U.S. to build airframes will be correspondingly diminished.
NGC is going to take that commercial airframe, and turn it into a tanker. It will then be built in Alabama.
The NGC capacity to build airframes...from SCRATCH...will be zero from this Alabama remodel operation.
And this is all about domestic independence. Something that this Administration is allergic to. He needs to go. Too bad McCain is even worse. He is the one lining his pockets with EADs money.
And we Americans not only lose critical defense infrastructure....while NGC LIES and SCHILLS for EADS in this, we will be paying $10 billion extra in procurement more than we otherwise would and $8 to $10 billion more in operations cost...
The costs always have to be paid. Even if the investors are taxpayers that have little choice of how their money is spent, the costs always have to be paid.
Nor would EADS and Airbus still be alive but for constant bailouts. The A-380 SHOULD have been their death knell.
If they were a US company, the problems with the A-380 might very well have driven them into chapter 11. However, they do have a valuable product and a viable market. It's a competitive market in which they often struggle, and mistakes as large as those with the A-380 take a long time to recover from. However, as long as the company can recover, which Airbus can, they would be granted Chapter 11 protection from their creditors and be allowed to recover.
Airbus' biggest problem is that the French government looks at it as a jobs program rather than a business. That tends to make them less competitive, not more competitive. Their connections to the French government likely hurt them more than the help. However, if the French government wants to dump tons of tax dollars into propping up an inefficiently run company, that's their problem, as long as the resulting product we buy meets our requirements.
Except it is $35 million MORE EXPENSIVE than the Boeing plane to procure.
Each plane is more expensive. However, NGC and the Air Force are arguing that their plane is more flexible and overall operating costs are lower. None of us really have enough information to evaluate that. Different people cherry pick different claims and interpret what they want from them, but none of us really know.
The award of this program has gone through a lot of scrutiny and will continue to go through a lot of scrutiny after the fact by people that do have access to the information. Advocates for Boeing are going to claim the program was awarded unfairly, and advocates for NGC are going to claim that it was awarded fairly. However, the awarding of the program will be reviewed in detail buy people with access to the appropriate information.
And now the EURO has just rocket up still higher against the dollar despite huge interventions trying to restrain it against the dollar. And those planes are denominated at some point not in dollars...but Euros.
Which is another reason why these planes (other than the first few) will be built in Alabama. Boeing has a considerable number of parts from their planes built in Japan and the UK. They are also susceptible to the slide of the US dollar.
Airbus has been complaining for some time now that their costs are too high because they build planes in the EU, but most of their customers order and buy planes in US dollars, and Airbus can't change the terms of their contracts after the fact just because the Euro is strong.
Not their exclusive contribution. Not hardly. See above.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to Airbus' lobbying efforts? Every contractor lobbies congress. Boeing is especially well known for it? I agree that their is a fine line between lobbying and bribery in some cases, but the system is what it is, and lobbying is unfortunately part of the business. Companies either play the game by the rules that Congress has created, or they don't get to play.
If Airbus broke the law in their lobbying efforts for this program, that would be justification for overturning the award, as it was with Boeing.
So far what I have heard are conspiracy theories, not facts.
Wrong. It will be assembled in Europe...and flown over as a complete plane, for reconstruction into the tanker.
The first few commercial planes will be built in Europe while the plant in Alabama is brought on line. The plant in Alabama will be a full production line capable of assembling planes for other commercial customers as well as for NGC. That means that as long as they have commercial sales, they don't need to shut down the line whenever Congress gets cold feet or fights among itself and won't pass a budget.
Why would EADS want to produce commercial planes in Alabama? Because of the weak dollar. Assembling planes in the US is cheaper than in the EU and gives them greater profits. It's bound to piss off the unions in the EU, but it gives them options, and they have had to outsource quite a few things to be competitive already.
No replacement for the capacity to build the airframe.
The Boeing plane isn't built from entirely US parts either.
No. Explain all of the EADS money and agents agushing around McCain and the Pentagon.
What defense contractor doesn't have lobbyists all over Washington?
No, the estimates are that at least 10% OF ALL the monies, the lion's share of the profits will be going to EADs profits.
So where did you come up with that figure?
How can you argue that EADS is making the lion's share of the profits after arguing that the strong Euro has to be killing their profits and they must be subsidizing their costs at the expense of the French taxpayers?
Which is it? Is EADS making all the profits, or are they unfairly underbidding Boeing while taking a loss? It might help your argument if you picked one and stuck with it.
The fact is that NGC is a token, a figure head, and at best a stooge, a mere front for EADs in this bid.
Your tinfoil hat is on way too tight.
The NGC capacity to build airframes...from SCRATCH...will be zero from this Alabama remodel operation.
EADS North America is building a full A330 assembly plant in Alabama. Once the planes are finished, they are transferred to an adjacent NGC facility for retrofit into tankers.
And this is all about domestic independence.
The Boeing plane has major parts from the UK and Japan that I know of, and likely quite a few other places. If your argument is that it must be completely made in the USA, than neither bid should win.
The costs always have to be paid. Even if the investors are taxpayers that have little choice of how their money is spent, the costs always have to be paid.Not in a completely corrupt socialist operation. And they haven't been. And no where is there anything like commercial interest rates, nor is there an accounting for the massive "grants" and "forgiveness" of the debts already that is being done to mask the fact...EADs/Airbus DOESN'T PAY IT'S LOANS BACK.
Nor would EADS and Airbus still be alive but for constant bailouts. The A-380 SHOULD have been their death knell.
If they were a US company, the problems with the A-380 might very well have driven them into chapter 11.First, they are not a U.S. company, and Chapter 11 is not available to them. Second, in Chapter 11, the entire ownership of the project would have been divested from the "shareholders" who would have gotten nada. And the management would have been fired. None of this happened as you well know.
However, they do have a valuable product and a viable market.No. It isn't either. It is a flying pig. Too inefficient and expensive. The infrastructure over-burden alone if not forced onto other carriers and planes would sink it. AND They have no where CLOSE to the break-even number of orders booked...and their delays are lengthening, despite the spend-thrift gusher of subsidies they are getting to wash over their mismanagement costs.
It's a competitive market in which they often struggle, and mistakes as large as those with the A-380 take a long time to recover from. However, as long as the company can recover, which Airbus can, they would be granted Chapter 11 protection from their creditors and be allowed to recover.You don't know as much about Chapter 11 as you think.
Airbus' biggest problem is that the French government looks at it as a jobs program rather than a business.
Actually they look at it as trade war, and intend to drive the U.S. out of business.
That tends to make them less competitive, not more competitive.
No it makes them less efficient. Not less "competitive" because by virtue of their total disconnect from free enterprise...they will spend whatever it takes, take whatever loss they have to take, to get the business.
Their connections to the French government likely hurt them more than the help. However, if the French government wants to dump tons of tax dollars into propping up an inefficiently run company, that's their problem, as long as the resulting product we buy meets our requirements.
Our requirements? Sorry, with an attitude like that (disregard for actual real companies bidding, not sovereign states with front-company operations) you disqualify yourself as being any kind of judge of what "our" requirements are.
Except it is $35 million MORE EXPENSIVE than the Boeing plane to procure.
Each plane is more expensive. However, NGC and the Air Force are arguing that their plane is more flexible and overall operating costs are lower. None of us really have enough information to evaluate that.
Yeah, we do. The price of fuel is the 800-lb gorilla in the operations costs of these tankers. And the Boeing plane is 24% more fuel efficient. Case closed even before we get to the additional factors that weight against the heavier, more expensive, EU-denominated Airbus which will only continue to become more disproportionately expenisive.
Different people cherry pick different claims and interpret what they want from them, but none of us really know.
Erroneous. If you can't argue the facts, you try to baffle with B.S. The whole point is that we can know. And the base line numbers are indicative of where all the costs savings really are. Boeing's proposal.
The award of this program has gone through a lot of scrutiny and will continue to go through a lot of scrutiny after the fact by people that do have access to the information. Advocates for Boeing are going to claim the program was awarded unfairly, and advocates for NGC are going to claim that it was awarded fairly. However, the awarding of the program will be reviewed in detail buy people with access to the appropriate information.
This is not a telling argument. The award was made by people who presumably had "the appropriate information". And they screwed up. Just like they did before when the lease deal went to Boeing. Which if McCain and Warner had not queered the deal, we would now already have 40+ new tankers and we would have the whole 100-plane enchilada for only $18 billion.
And now the EURO has just rocket up still higher against the dollar despite huge interventions trying to restrain it against the dollar. And those planes are denominated at some point not in dollars...but Euros.
Which is another reason why these planes (other than the first few) will be built in Alabama. Boeing has a considerable number of parts from their planes built in Japan and the UK.
This turns out to be a shibboleth put out by Airbus. The actual Boeing proposal was using very, very few imported parts. The only ones really would have been Pratt & Whitney's engines in Canada. Which were being sold at a great price.
They are also susceptible to the slide of the US dollar.
Pratt & Whitney...being a U.S. company... would then be pretty likely to move their production for this engine back to the U.S.
Airbus has been complaining for some time now that their costs are too high because they build planes in the EU, but most of their customers order and buy planes in US dollars, and Airbus can't change the terms of their contracts after the fact just because the Euro is strong.
You don't know how their contracts accomodate the real-world concern of those price shocks. Their contracts do have adjustment provisions.
Not their exclusive contribution. Not hardly. See above.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to Airbus' lobbying efforts? Every contractor lobbies congress. Boeing is especially well known for it? I agree that their is a fine line between lobbying and bribery in some cases, but the system is what it is, and lobbying is unfortunately part of the business. Companies either play the game by the rules that Congress has created, or they don't get to play.
If Airbus broke the law in their lobbying efforts for this program, that would be justification for overturning the award, as it was with Boeing.
So far what I have heard are conspiracy theories, not facts.
Really? You don't think that EADs hasn't bribed for EVERY SINGLE contract it has won? You aren't in the real world then. And note...it wasn't Northrup Grumman's lobbyists that wound on McCain's "staff". [Who is on who's staff is the more real question]. And you should also be aware that EADS has already announced plans to buy at least two U.S. defense companies this year. I'll give you one guess which one might be high on their list.
As for EADs, a foreign entity, lobbying for U.S. tax-monies, Check this out:
McCain Defends His Tanker Deal InquiriesMcCain Denies Lobbyists in His Campaign Prompted His Inquiries Into Air Force Tanker Deal [File Under, Yeah, Rooooight]
By JIM KUHNHENN
The Associated Press, WASHINGTONSen. John McCain said Tuesday his inquiries into a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract were designed to assure evenhanded bidding and denied they were motivated by lobbyists who are close advisers to his presidential campaign.
"I had nothing to do with the contract [Translation: "I am not a crook"], except to insist in writing, on several occasions, as this process went forward, that it be fair and open and transparent," he said at a meeting with voters in St. Louis. "That was my involvement in it."
His remarks came after The Associated Press reported that some of his current advisers lobbied last year for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the parent company of plane maker Airbus. EADS and its U.S. partner Northrop Grumman Corp. beat Boeing Co. for the lucrative aerial refueling contract.
Boeing on Tuesday filed a formal protest of the tanker award with the Government Accountability Office, citing "irregularities" in the contract competition.
Two of the lobbyists working on the EADS account gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign last year. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbies for EADS and serves as McCain's national finance chairman.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been instrumental in the Pentagon's long attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier, scandal-marred tanker contract with Boeing in 2004 and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to change proposed bidding procedures opposed by Airbus.
EADS retained The Loeffler Group to lobby for the tanker deal last year, months after McCain sent two letters urging the Defense Department to make sure the bidding proposals guaranteed competition between Boeing and Airbus.
"They never lobbied him related to the issues, and the letters went out before they were contracted" by EADS, McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said.
According to lobbying records filed with the Senate, Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Loeffler; Susan Nelson, who left the firm and is now the campaign's finance director, and former Secretary of the Navy William Ball III, who has campaigned for McCain. EADS also had a long-term relationship with Ogilvy Government Relations, formerly known as the Federalist Group. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who records show worked on the EADS account, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign's congressional liaison.
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group that has cooperated with McCain in the past on the tanker issue, said she had seen no evidence that lobbyists influenced McCain's stands on the bidding process. But she said he is judged differently because of his reputation as a self-described "straight-talking" reformer.
"McCain ends up having to live by a higher standard than everyone else because he's the one that's been pointing out how corrupt the whole Washington system is," she said. "And when he doesn't, he does hand his critics ammunition."
McCain on Tuesday said his work on the tanker was designed to keep the bidding competitive.
"I think my record is very clear on this issue, including a paper trail of letters that we wrote to the Department of Defense during this process and saying clearly and unequivocally we just want a fair process, and we don't want a repeat of the previous process," he told reporters in St. Louis. "I think my record on this issue is very clear and authenticated by both written and verbal statements on the issue."
McCain is a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics. But he has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.
A Boeing spokesman declined to comment on the links between McCain and lobbying efforts on behalf of EADS. Loeffler did not respond to phone and e-mail messages.
But Boeing supporters, particularly in Washington state where Boeing would have performed much of the tanker work, already have begun to accuse McCain of damaging Boeing's chances by inserting himself into the tanker deal.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said the field was "tilted to Airbus" because the Pentagon did not weigh European subsidies for Airbus in its deliberations — a decision he blamed on McCain.
In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was "troubled" by the Air Force's draft request for bids.
The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.
Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. Airbus objected to the provision and asked the Pentagon to drop it in June 2006.
McCain, in his letter to Gates on Dec. 1, 2006, said the proposed bid request "may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted." The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.
Dicks, a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said the removal of the subsidy language was a "game-changer" that favored EADS over Boeing.
EADS also wanted the Pentagon to factor into the bidding process the ability of the new tanker to carry cargo and passengers [I.e., this wasn't in the RFP to much degree before their McCain interference ]. The Airbus proposal called for a much bigger plane than the 767 offered by Boeing.
In his letter to Gates, McCain urged the Pentagon to write bid requests that would take into account the various capabilities of the tanker plane.
Nearly two months later, Gates replied that the Air Force had made changes "responsive to the concerns identified in your letter."
Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the EADS-Northrop Grumman plane was "clearly a better performer" than the one proposed by Boeing.
But Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that the Air Force altered its requirements at the last minute. Smith said he didn't know whether McCain had influenced the Air Force decision. "What is clear is there was a change," he said.
EADS' interest in the tanker deal is evident in the political contributions of its employees. From 2004 to 2006, donations by its employees jumped from $42,500 to $141,931, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. So far this election cycle, company employees have donated $120,350. Of that, McCain's presidential campaign has received $14,000, more than any other member of Congress this election cycle. [Just a coincidence]
McCain's oversight of the tanker contract goes back to 2003 when, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and of an Armed Services subcommittee, he led an investigation that uncovered a procurement scandal that killed an earlier tanker contract with Boeing. A former Air Force official and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials. [Meantime innumerable SUBSEQUENT scandals later, no EADS officers have had so much as a wrist-slap for their criminal misdeeds and bribery operations]
While McCain has praised Boeing for fixing its practices, his campaign said the experience prompted him to demand "a full, fair and open competition." His letters — one to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in September 2006 and the other to Gates — were sent with that spirit in mind, Hazelbaker said.
Once the rules were in place, Hazelbaker said, bidders submitted proposals, the Air Force reviewed them and the contract was awarded.
"That is a process that McCain, appropriately, had absolutely no role in," she said.
________________________________
Associated Press Writers Glen Johnson in St. Louis and Libby Quaid contributed to this report. ________________________________________
COMMENT:
We know very well the McCain interference wasn't intended to keep the bidding "competitive." Where was his "concern" after the rules changes? Nowhere. Hence he got the result he wanted: It was to forcibly omit the consideration of the EADS/Airbus anti-competitive advantage of its subsidies.
And it is clearly not credible that all of these high-ranking EADs lobbyists magically appeared on the McCain pay-roll.
Where there is smoke, there is fire.
Wrong. It will be assembled in Europe...and flown over as a complete plane, for reconstruction into the tanker.
The first few commercial planes will be built in Europe while the plant in Alabama is brought on line.
Actually there is no limit on European assemblies after the first four being entirely built in Europe. The offer of the EADs plant in Alabama is simply a snap-to-together assembly proposal, using the Airbus parts. Which it would be more efficient to simply send over pre-assembled since the thing can fly itself over.
The plant in Alabama will be a full production line capable of assembling planes for other commercial customers as well as for NGC.
Not producing. And note that this is not in Airbus's intentions, just more empty promises. If your assertion is right, and France views this as European jobs program, then this was all window-dressing meant to fake out Jeff Sessions.
That means that as long as they have commercial sales, they don't need to shut down the line whenever Congress gets cold feet or fights among itself and won't pass a budget.
Oh yeah, there are people standing in line to buy decrepit A-330s.
Why would EADS want to produce commercial planes in Alabama? Because of the weak dollar. Assembling planes in the US is cheaper than in the EU and gives them greater profits.
They are not about profits. They have been busy sucking loans up they don't repay. Case closed.
It's bound to piss off the unions in the EU, but it gives them options, and they have had to outsource quite a few things to be competitive already.
At best it would only be final assembly being outsourced "to Alabama". Those parts they would use to do the assembly ...would be fabricated in Europe.
No replacement for the capacity to build the airframe.
The Boeing plane isn't built from entirely US parts either.
No. Only 85% U.S. content.
No. Explain all of the EADS money and agents agushing around McCain and the Pentagon.
What defense contractor doesn't have lobbyists all over Washington?
So? At least the U.S. contractors are U.S. EADS isn't.
No, the estimates are that at least 10% OF ALL the monies, the lion's share of the profits will be going to EADs profits.
So where did you come up with that figure?
Based on available defense industry statistics.
How can you argue that EADS is making the lion's share of the profits after arguing that the strong Euro has to be killing their profits
They won't kill their profits because they will be allowed to pass through their costs. Typical cost-plus contract. So your assertion rests on a false assumption.
and they must be subsidizing their costs at the expense of the French taxpayers?
Hello, where have you been the last 30 years of Airbus history?
Which is it? Is EADS making all the profits, or are they unfairly underbidding Boeing while taking a loss? It might help your argument if you picked one and stuck with it.
Nope. You're the one hung by a contradiction on the point of his petard. We...the U.S. taxpayer... will now be forced into subsidizing THEIR subsidy operation. They get to continue to cheat at trade...and get the sad-sack U.S. taxpayer to help them do it too!
The fact is that NGC is a token, a figure head, and at best a stooge, a mere front for EADs in this bid.
Your tinfoil hat is on way too tight.
They said the same thing about Bush's NAU plans...until Vincente Fox ratted him out. Anyways, the bid by EADs to buy out NGC is likely already being drafted. Check this out. So much for your tinfoil aspersions.
The NGC capacity to build airframes...from SCRATCH...will be zero from this Alabama remodel operation.
EADS North America is building a full A330 assembly plant in Alabama.
Not a subcomponent fabrications plant. Just a mere assembler of the Euro parts.
Once the planes are finished, they are transferred to an adjacent NGC facility for retrofit into tankers.
Simpler to just fly them over complete. And less dishonest as to what is going on.
And this is all about domestic independence.
The Boeing plane has major parts from the UK and Japan that I know of
No. You don't "know." They explicitly changed that. They have been extracted from the Boeing proposal which was 85% US content.
and likely quite a few other places.
Now who has the tin-foil hat on?
If your argument is that it must be completely made in the USA, than neither bid should win.
How about at least 75% domestic content which was the Ronald Reagan STANDARD Defense procurement acquisition rule?
As I said before. The costs are still paid. The reason that corrupt socialist governments usually if not fail completely, but have horrible economies is because the costs still have to be paid.
When Airbus doesn't repay it's debts, the burden of those debts ends up resting on the taxpayers, where Boeing's mistakes rest on it's stockholders.
First, they are not a U.S. company, and Chapter 11 is not available to them. Second, in Chapter 11, the entire ownership of the project would have been divested from the "shareholders" who would have gotten nada. And the management would have been fired.
Chapter 11 doesn't require that all the management be fired, nor is that usually what happens. Some senior management gets the boot, which actually did happen at Airbus due to A380 problems.
As for "ownership" of the A380 project being divested, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Because of the mistakes and delays, the A380 may never end up being profitable. However, they are far enough in the development process where it still makes far more sense to continue and recoup much of the development costs rather than dump the project and take a complete loss on all they have invested.
I doubt they ever really expected the A380 to turn a huge profit. I'm sure they meant it to be profitable, but I suspect that they thought that building the largest passenger jet which involved a lot of technology that was new at the time, would bring them a lot of other business.
It's likely in their best interest to complete the A380 even if the best they can hope for at this point is to come close to breaking even.
No. It isn't either. It is a flying pig. Too inefficient and expensive.
You're welcome to that opinion, but there are still a considerable number of customers that will buy it just for the prestige of operating the largest commercial airline. This is especially true of some middle eastern airlines that have lots of money to burn.
You can shake your head at the "wisdom" shown by their customer base, but the do have a customer base for the A380.
Actually they look at it as trade war, and intend to drive the U.S. out of business.
Airbus was created because without combining together the European Aerospace industry didn't have the resources to compete with Boeing. The aerospace industry is a huge and lucrative market. Is there any surprise that others want a piece of it?
As for trying to drive the U.S. (Boeing) out of business, they are nowhere close to being able to do that. They are very competitive in some market segments, and far less in others, but they are no where close to actually dominating the market.
No it makes them less efficient. Not less "competitive" because by virtue of their total disconnect from free enterprise...they will spend whatever it takes, take whatever loss they have to take, to get the business.
Using the government's treasury gives them deeper pockets and allows them more ability to absorb the costs of their inefficiencies for a longer period of time. However, they aren't immune to market forces. They have an unfair advantage in some cases, but they still aren't immune to the effects of bad decisions, and the French government can't simply just keep bailing them out for billions upon billions of dollars forever.
Airbus is dragging down the French economy. They will have to find ways to improve efficiency and reduce the influence of politics in their decision making processes, or Boeing will continue to increase it's market share, and Airbus' share will continue to shrink.
However, this is mostly related to the A380, or are you suggesting that France is giving Airbus free loans and allowing them to default on them so that it can provide the A330s for our tankers at under their cost? If so, why should we stop them from doing so?
Our requirements? Sorry, with an attitude like that (disregard for actual real companies bidding, not sovereign states with front-company operations) you disqualify yourself as being any kind of judge of what "our" requirements are.
I don't claim to be the judge of our requirement. The Air Force is the judge of our requirement.
Yeah, we do. The price of fuel is the 800-lb gorilla in the operations costs of these tankers. And the Boeing plane is 24% more fuel efficient.
It's more efficient for a single trip where both planes deliver the same amount of fuel. However, since the NGC tanker has greater capacity, it can fly farther, stay up longer, and fuel more aircraft before having to return to fill back up.
They were judged on the overall cost to operate and the Air Force appears to have given a slight edge to NGC on that.
You can't just pick out the parts that favor Boeing, claim they are the overriding factor, and then claim that the Air Force must have dishonestly awarded the contract to NGC.
You're cherry picking without any real way of knowing how the overall operating costs stack up.
Erroneous. If you can't argue the facts, you try to baffle with B.S. The whole point is that we can know. And the base line numbers are indicative of where all the costs savings really are. Boeing's proposal.
I have argued the facts. You aren't. You're picking our Boeing's claims. Of course Boeing claims they are the most efficient overall. I'm sure they even provided scenarios in which they were the most efficient. I'm sure NGC also claims they were the most efficient and provided scenarios showing that they were the most efficient. The Air Force however then evaluates the proposals and determines which they feel is the most efficient overall.
The award was made by people who presumably had "the appropriate information". And they screwed up.
You arrived at that conclusion because of what you learned by reading Boeing's statements and a lot of articles on the web that are full of opinions, but aren't based on a lot of facts? Why do you know better than the people working at the Air Force who made the decision?
Really? You don't think that EADs hasn't bribed for EVERY SINGLE contract it has won? You aren't in the real world then. And note...it wasn't Northrup Grumman's lobbyists that wound on McCain's "staff". [Who is on who's staff is the more real question]. And you should also be aware that EADS has already announced plans to buy at least two U.S. defense companies this year. I'll give you one guess which one might be high on their list.
Lots of conspiracy theories, but short on facts indicating that this decision was made based on anything but the merits.
As for EADs, a foreign entity, lobbying for U.S. tax-monies, Check this out:
EADs North America is a domestic company. You'll have a hard time finding a major defense contractor that doesn't have parts of it's company in multiple countries.
Why shouldn't a company that operates in the US be able to lobby just like any American company can?
Sen. John McCain said Tuesday his inquiries into a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract were designed to assure evenhanded bidding and denied they were motivated by lobbyists who are close advisers to his presidential campaign.
So if you lobby congress, you aren't allowed to volunteer to help on a political campaign of a candidate you support? Do you think that people at other defense contractors might think favorably of a Senator that called for a more open bidding process after Boeing was caught with its hand in the cookie jar?
Innuendo makes for a conspiracy theory, not a solid argument, and definitely not proof of inappropriate actions.
I don't like McCain, I don't trust McCain, but I don't see any real evidence that he did more than take some opportunistic pot shots at Boeing to appeal to the anti-corruption crowd.
EADS' interest in the tanker deal is evident in the political contributions of its employees. From 2004 to 2006, donations by its employees jumped from $42,500 to $141,931, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. So far this election cycle, company employees have donated $120,350. Of that, McCain's presidential campaign has received $14,000, more than any other member of Congress this election cycle. [Just a coincidence]
Wow! You mean that McCain wrote letters demanding that there be a guaranteed competition and complaining about past corruption in the bidding process, and EADs empolyees then donated a total of $14,000 to his campaign? I would have never thought that EADS employees would have been inclined to donate to McCain after he took a high profile stand against the previous corrupt process that helped allow EADS a chance to place a competitive bid! A whole $14,000 total from EADS employees in total. If you can't tell this is sarcasm. I would have been more surprised if employees didn't donate to him. People working for defense contractors do have a greater tendency to be politically active.
I work for a defense contractor in the Aerospace industry. I even live right next to Wright Patterson Air Force Base where this decision was made. I donated money to a political campaign too. Does that mean I'm part of some conspiracy too? Well I didn't donate to McCain, so I guess not.
You obviously believe what you are saying. You don't have the ability to prove it, nor do I have the ability to disprove it. I can point out that I believe you are stretching a series of details into a theory without much by way of really solid facts to back them up, but to some extent that's all any of us can do since we aren't privy to the real details, nor do we have the resources to properly evaluate them.
How about at least 75% domestic content which was the Ronald Reagan STANDARD Defense procurement acquisition rule?
Makes sense to me for things that are central to our defense strategy, including tankers. We do need to be able to assemble these domestically, and even be able to build the parts that aren't available domestically if it were to become necessary.
There should be a requirement for these planes to be built in Alabama after the first few. I can understand importing the first few simply so that the delivery date doesn't get stretched out to far.
I am pretty confident that these will get built in Alabama. Why? Because while this is a large order for a company like EADS, it's still a tiny portion of the contracts they are hoping to be able to bid on in the future, and if they don't build these in Alabama, they are making it less likely that they will win bids in the future.
There's also the simple fact that it is cheaper to assemble them here, and while EADS does play a role of a European jobs program, it also does need to bring in revenues, and this contract give them a politically safe excuse to shift some production out of the Euro zone.
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.