What are you smoking?

No, the USAF only looses if it ends up with the KC-30, which it REJECTED for not meeting its need in 2002.

Why does the Gulf Coast have to win? What about the rest of the US?

No, the US DOES NOT have to go to a foreign producer. The RIGHT sized tanker (which is MUCH more proven than the “competition”) is built right here in the USA (MANUFACTURED & ASSEMBLED in Washington State & MODIFIED in Kansas).

No way assembly & modification supports the same jobs as mamufacturing, assemlby & modification do.

The US content of the KC-767AT would be ~85% vs ~58% for the KC-30 — NOT EVEN CLOSE!

There never was nor will there ever be a “charity donation of the contract to Boeing”. Airbus/EADS “needs” the KC-X contract MUCH more than Boeing.

Boeing is MORE THAN happy to provide the USAF with what ever it asked for & from 2001 thru 2007 that was the KC-767.

Boeing can deliver just as many tankers just as quickly as EADS can.

Don’t confuse there not being a large market for NEW airliners that carry ~180 3-class passengers up to over 6500nm (because that segment is already filled with the 767-200s currently in service) with obsolescence. The 767-200LRF is every bit as modern & advanced ans any A330 & the KC-767AT is every bit as modern & advanced as the KC-30. Once the 787 & A350 reach full production (filling every medium-long range market from ~200 to ~350 3-class passangers) orders for the A330 will stop fairly quickly.

If the Gulf Coast wants to create a new Aerospace Industry let it do so in the free market, nobody is denying them. Hell if a new Gulf Coast Aerospace Industry is your biggest concern, pay Boeing to modify 767-200LRFs into KC-767ATs in Alabama (I am sure the fine people of Kansas won’t like it though).

If the Air Force got a new tanker that met their needs
A right sized and proven plane
They had to go to a foreign producer
(but the jobs created in the US would be the same as the Boeing proposal)
Notwithstanding, the Air Force would be cursed for not buying American
Even though either plane would have similiar US made content. Boeing’s outsourcing is huge.

And if the Air Force simply did a charity donation of the contract to Boeing
They had to take what was offered –
And wait till Boeing could deliver
And be ready to buy parts from China for the life of the ship.
Because the 767 was obsolete airship.

In the end, the political whores in Washington do not care whether the Air Force gets what they need and want.

They only care that elected policical prostitutes in Washington are re-elected while trading favors amongst themselves–and sucking thier subsidies from the ever present well funded lobbyists.

The fact that the political system produces anything at all is quite amazing.

The real loser in this is the Gulf Coast–which was bidding to create a new Aerospace Industry, create jobs and tax bases and has been denied by the political whores one more time. You can’t trust Rednecks. They need to be put down and Boeing needs to be sustained.

Whit.

Check this out…

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/211260102_bf6047a56b.jpg?v=0

thanks…

What specs doesn’t the KC-767AT meet?

The KC-767AT MORE THAN meets the KC-X requirements. In fact it met ALL key requirements (NG/EADS & the KC-X source selection team failed to reasonably justify that the KC-30 did) & meet far more non-key requirements than the KC-30.

It doesn’t require billions of dollars in infrastucture improvemnet just to do what the KC-135s do & costs billions of dollars less to operate & maintain than the KC-30.

So the USAF should buy an Airbus/EADS tanker that doesn’t meet its specs (even after they were altred to accomodate it) & will cost tens of billions of dollars more over the life of the program because you want to punish Boeing for the mistakes the USAF made?

Uh…run that one by me again, I think I missed something.

And by the way, Boeing aircraft are not made in America, they are assembled in America.

Typical hypicritical EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker BS.

What happens if any of the suppliers of parts for the A330 stopped making them?

Nothing would happen to the US tanker program if China stopped making parts for the 787 and 777 BECAUSE THE BOEING PROPOSED TANKER IS BASED ON THE 767. And there is NOTHING China makes which could not be made elsewhere.

Boeing is perfectly capable of building (&/or finding an alternate supplier of) any part to any of its aircraft.

Boeing made the choice to include a higher amount of overseas manufacture of the 787. If it had to, Boeing could manufacture the whole thing (or only use US subcontractors) but it would be more expensive to do so & the fact that much of the 787 is manufactured overseas is a major selling point in those countries where part of the 787 is manufactured.

NG has NOTHING to do with the design/developement, manufacture/assembly of the A330 while Boeing DID design/developement & DOES manufacture/assembly the 767. What NG does is take a “green” A330-200 designed/developed & manufactured/assembled by EADS & modifies it into a KC-30.

But we are not talking about an airliner meant to for the global airline market. The KC-X is an aerial refueling tanker for the USAF.

The 787 is completely irrelevant to the KC-X. Boeing’s proposal is based on the 767 & NOT the 787.

A lot of people DO care if a vital military platform is manufactured overseas rather than in the US by a US company. I am not saying that is a reason to reject the KC-30 but there ARE valid national interest reasons to go with the KC-767AT.

Sorry but the KC-30″ would not be “ours” until the “green” A330-200 is delivered to NG. Prior to that its ownership is still that of EADS (though its subsidiaries Airbus & EADS North America). And it would not be until some time after 2020 when received the 175th operational KC-30…

And so what if the A330 fuselage is manufactured overseas? Who cares? It’s not as though the French can just make the structure vanish if they want. Once it arrives in Mobile, it’s ours.

And if Boeing wants to make the case that the tanker ought to be built here, then they better get their thumbs outta their butts and START BUILDING SOME DAMN AIRPLANES. It’s hard to convince people of the virtues of proud American workers when those proud American workers are all on strike.

The KC-767AT is not a 787.

The 787 is not a USAF aerial refueling tanker.

Boeing MANUFACTURES a significant portion of the 787 (although notably larger portions are supplied by overseason suppliers) in addition to designing/developing it.

NG would take delivery of a “green” A330-200 MANUFACTURED by Airbus in Europe & ASSEMBLED by EADS North America in Alabama.

Actually it is NG & EADS which have gotten their money’s worth out of their PR department & by a small army of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers. Trying to FOOL people into believing that an aircraft MANUFACTURED in Europe with FINAL ASSEMBLY occuring in Alabama is a NG tanker.

Clearly, Boeing built the 135, 50 years ago! I contend that the engineers who did that are long since gone and probably dead! If not, then having a 80 year+ old engineer leading a new program smacks of risk that he, A) drops dead of natural causes, B) drops dead under the pressure or C) relies on 50 year old technology he used back then? Just how many of these dinosaurs do you still have on the payroll?

So the KC-135 heritage BS doesn’t hold water!

Current experience on “building tankers” is wracked with delays, certification failures and angry customers. Japan and Italy both nearly pulled out and would have if they weren’t part of the consortium. Airbus has built and delivered their tankers to other countries with little or no delay or problems. So how is a Boeing subsidy not High Risk?

They don’t even have a paper design anymore (2–3 years to design another Frankentanker), 2–3 year Proposal effort, 1–3 year startup since their old line will be down by then, Standard 4 year production delay and 1 year to actually build a tanker.
We are looking at a minimum 13 years before the first Boeing tanker could be delivered?

Oh I forgot the mandatory minimum one month delay per year to accomadate Boeing strikes, which adds another year or two delay.

Just how, even in your Boeing frame of mind, do you consider this less risky?????

Today’s Ethics Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win