Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1002 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3050 times:
my question was whether you all share my view that the FT article is biased against boeing, as the bid was open.
your argument that the pentagon has close relations to other suppliers has little to do with the accusation spelled out in the financial times article, namely that the pentagon handed informaiton to boeing that should not have handed.
finally, airbus is a branch of EADS so your counterpoint is not appropriate.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3035 times:
I dunno...as an American taxpayer, I would be livid if my government paid billions of dollars to a company that was not headquartered (thus paying taxes of their own) in this country. I don't care if Airbus was willing to GIVE planes to the USAF - IMHO, the only companies that should be considered for US government contracts are companies that are based in the US - regardless of the number of US subcontractors that might be used in the production of Airbus aircraft.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
Maybe the Airforce told Airbus that Boeings bid was a few million cheaper. My god, isn't this all about playing one off the other. If it isn't, then the Airforce obviously wanted the 767, and they are the customer.
Bucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
" I dunno...as an American taxpayer, I would be livid if my government paid billions of dollars to a company that was not headquartered (thus paying taxes of their own) in this country"
I agree. I would have been pissed if my government bought planes from Airbus, when there is an American company that can provide the planes. If we don't buy from Boeing, we may be in situation where there is no large aircraft manufacturer in the U.S. and that starts to become a national security issue. No, I don't care if we pay more, the U.S. Air Force should buy Boeing.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
So, Bucky707, you don't mind 27000 of your tax dollars being spent on a toilet seat on a C5 ? Because now that "Buy American" means "Buy Boeing", you can be sure Boeing is going to apply those DOD "cost overruns" (= license to print money ) on every last rivet they sell ! Aaah, shareholder value.
And since there are frequent complaints in these columns about European government "handouts" to Airbus, wouldn't you rather your Air Force tankers were subsidised by EU taxpayers, and not you ? Now there's a win-win situation for you.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11793 posts, RR: 48 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Bucky707, So you'll be happy when your tax bill goes up?
Isn't the USAF obligated to procure equipment from the lowest bidder - assuming products X & Y both do the required job, and X costs 30% more than Y, then the contract goes to Y. I don't believe nationality of the supplier has any relevance to the USAF.
The issue in the FT article is that Darleen Druyun, then an AF procurement official, now working at Boeing , told Boeing officials the prices Airbus had offered to build the tankers for, even as the two companies were still negotiating with the Pentagon. In an email made public by John McCain (chairman of the commerce committee), Boeing execs said they had a meeting with Ms Druyun in which she told them several times that Airbus's price on an A330 was up to $17m cheaper than Boeing's price for a 767.
Bucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
First of all, it was Lockheed who stuck the government for the toilet seats, not Boeing. Either way, the government needs to have good oversight and prevent price gauging. They also need to look in the mirror. Sometimes the government will insist on a brand new design, when an off the shelf component is available.
No, I would not want our tankers subsidized by EU taxpayers. I don't want my government dependent on a foreign supplier. I think its in my countries best interest to keep Boeing in business.
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
i also think that the USAF should buy boeing. it is not right polyticaly for the US government to buy airbus aircraft, that show lack of faith in thier own products. but i also think that $21.5 billion is too high a price to pay.
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
One of the more revealing memos among the newly released documents showed that Darleen Druyun, then the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition and management, told Boeing to "keep in mind" that an Airbus bid was $5 million to $17 million cheaper per airplane than a basic Boeing 767.
Already under discussion on the military forum ...
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Let's not forget EU's OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d'Armement) told EuroProp International (EPI) that their TP400-D6 proposal for the A400M was much more expensive that Pratt & Whitney Canada/MTU's PW800 proposal. In the end, they still awarded the contract to EPI which was more costly and more risky. Was there any government-level investigation of possible impropriety in this award in Europe? This is a big difference between US and European politics.
Rickb From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2892 times:
Obviously you guys wont want the US to buy the JSF then as its powered by a foreign engine !!! Think of all those tax dollars leaving the country !!!
As for the article - I dont have any complaints if the airforce and Boeing did collude as suggested. I just wish we did that more here - rather than sending shipbuilders to the unemployment office it would be nice if we built more of our own ships rather than farming it out to other countries. Its strange to think that a lower bid in a foreign country can win the business - since if the money is kept within the original country - a good percentage of it will eventually find its way back into governmental coffers through taxation generating more revenue for the government.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2889 times:
Notwithstanding the chicanery that is the norm in Europe (especially with Airbus), I think Boeing is clearly complicit in a ripoff of the taxpayer and that Pentagon has been asleep at the wheel. The Pentagon has become far too close with Boeing.
Congress needs to belly up and pay for these airplanes outright.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2865 times:
I don't think Europe is particularly corrupt. However, the continuing support of Airbus with sham loans, exemption from taxes, slot-trading at CDG, A400, is an outright scam and is incredibly corrupt. I hold the French mostly responsible.
Rickb From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2854 times:
No im not saying your a xenophobe - relax dude !! Just saying that the sweeping statement you made was a little xenophobic.
How does the Airbus sham loans differ from overpriced 767's, public funded R&D, theft of proprietary information from competitors etc? Its swings and roundabouts - pot calling the kettle etc. Everyone is as bad as everyone else.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 18 Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2846 times:
Yes indeedy do, some of the engines may well be foreign made. But the prime contractor is based in America and pays corporate taxes to the US government and employees Americans who also pay their taxes to the US government. In other words, despite the "globalization" in the construction of an aircraft, the country that the manufacturer calls home benefits from the location of that company. IMHO, the competition should be between Lockheed or Boeing. My stance isn't anti Europe/Asia - but rather if my tax dollars are going to have to be spent on purchases such as this, I would prefer that the bulk of those tax dollars are spent in this country and not "offshored" to foreign governments.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
RE: "but rather if my tax dollars are going to have to be spent on purchases such as this, I would prefer that the bulk of those tax dollars are spent in this country and not "offshored" to foreign governments. "
Hmmm - State-sponsored job-creation ? Protectionism ? Trade barriers ? How very European.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
And so is the French Airforce using American equipment? Don't worry about it! If the US government wants to buy Boeing then let them. I agree with GoingBoeing, why should the U.S. government support the French company, when the French Government wouldn't support us last winter? As a tax payer I hope we are buying American equipment too!
25 Rickb: Actually the french government do operate US aircraft. They have a number of E3's purchased only a few years ago. RickB
26 MD-11 forever: @Goingboeing ...wasn't the Japanese aerospace industry also a significant part in the 767 program? So your tax money is also going there...... Cheers,
27 Shenzhen: Why are the Europeans building a GPS system? Slip a little more money to EADS failing space business? Why not open that up for bids. If Boeing snapped
28 JGPH1A: The French AF uses B707 AWACs and Lockheed C130's (I think) - and used to use DC-8's as VIP transports. The French Navy used Crusaders (a while back t
29 Staffan: "I agree with GoingBoeing, why should the U.S. government support the French company, when the French Government wouldn't support us last winter?" Don
30 Keesje: "the Air Force and Boeing assisted each other in .....and setting requirements so that no other competitors could qualify" Boeing apparently thought s
31 Rabenschlag: in my eyes, the more interesting part of the article is the suspicion that there was too much information flowing between the pentagon and boeing. one
32 Dynkrisolo: RickB: So would you be more supportive of an Airbus bid for the tanker contract if Airbus set up a subsidiary based in the US that built the aircraft
33 Beltwaybandit: Let's keep in mind that the 767 tanker deal was conjured up during the shadow of 9/11 and many were predicting the demise of all US commercial aircraf
34 RayChuang: I think the big problem for the USAF in regards to Airbus' proposal for a new air-refuelling tanker using the A330-200 design is the fact Airbus has y
35 Rickb: Dynkrisolo, I have absolutely no problem with buying US products over anyone else's product - I am a firm believer that if the product is the best or
36 N79969: I believe PW was doubly screwed in the A400 engine competition. From what I recall, the competitor was allowed to resubmit its bid after the bids were
37 Goingboeing: @Goingboeing ...wasn't the Japanese aerospace industry also a significant part in the 767 program? So your tax money is also going there...... Cheers,
38 HlywdCatft: Yeah I totally agree with what Going Boeing said.
39 Gigneil: Once again, hypocrisy rules the day... Indeed. We only want US agencies to buy US products, but we ALSO only want European countries and agencies to b
40 Dynkrisolo: RickB: In the end - as with many military contracts throughout the world including the US - cost overruns etc. have hampered progress (think of the US
41 Rickb: Dynkrisolo, The AV8B is a perfect example of the US wanting to buy a foreign aircraft but refusing to do so. They only bought the aircraft on the basi
42 Racko: I think it's ok when the US government says: "We only want to buy US products". But in that case, they should be fair and just tell EADS that they hav
43 Goingboeing: Sorry to disappoint you Racko, but I was (and still am) very pro French on the war thing. But I don't think taxpayer money should go to another countr
44 Dynkrisolo: The AV8B is a perfect example of the US wanting to buy a foreign aircraft but refusing to do so. They only bought the aircraft on the basis that it w
45 Rickb: Dynkrisolo, The problem is that these issue are just as likely to be exposed in Europe (or at least certainly in the UK) as they are in the US. The UK
46 UAL777: Personally, I think that the 330 is garbage and would do a terrible job. The Air Force will but the 767s after the lease is up. This brings in a key f
47 Rickb: UAL777, If thats true then the 7e7 is stuffed from birth !!! Composites in most case have been chosen because they are stonger and resist stress disto
48 Dynkrisolo: RickB: I'm not going to argue with you whether the UK or the US has a more intrusive media. It's a rather subjective thing. I would agree with you tha
49 UAL777: Rickb, that is not what I meant. A 767 will last longer than a A330, A340, or 7E7 will....On a scale of about 40 years which is alot longer than the v
50 Gigneil: The A330 does not use significantly more composites than the 767... certainly not in the fuselage or wings. Not that you provided any logic behind you
51 Boeing4ever: Boeing apparently thought so to .. Airbus aircraft were cheaper and perhaps less 330´s (more range/capasity) could have done the same job. At least i
52 Rickb: Dynkrisolo, I am not ignoring your PWC/EPI examples - I simply dont know enough about it to comment - but if you read my other posts you will see that
53 BoingGoingGone: Or simply.... The US leases the 767, and then evaluates the 7E7 for purchase. A tanker with 8000 mile range is mighty attractive. The Air Force then b
54 Beltwaybandit: Here's an interesting irony: A: You cannot control a US airline unless you are a US citizen. You cannot register any civil aircraft in the US unless y
55 Keesje: If leases was the solution they could have leased A330 cheaper (because they were cheaper) It think it is thru the US gov wants to keep the line open
56 BoingGoingGone: Nope... The 767 is just a temporary stop gap. My guess... They order 767s and then jump to the 7E7 in a swap. Everything the Air Force has can survive
57 Rickb: BoeingGoingGone, Here is the problem - the US military provides the specification for the product - not the design. This request is then sent out to t
58 Bobs89irocz: i agree with Bucky707. I think the US needs to spend US money on a US product, at least something of this size. Who gives a shit that the JSF engine i
59 BoingGoingGone: The place that the 7E7 would benefit the Air Force would be a B-2 launched from the Midwest meeting a West coast based 7E7 Refueler over the Middle Ea