Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.  
User currently offlineColumbia107 From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

Boeing said during the competition it would generate about 45,000 jobs with its tanker work, with about 85 percent of the aircraft's components of US origin. Northrop and EADS have said in the wake of their win that there will be about 44,000 positions involved in the US in their tanker work. Roughly 60 percent of their design will be from US-built parts.

In early June, the Economic Policy Institute, a self-proclaimed independent, non-profit and non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C., issued a study claiming that the Air Force's KC-X tanker award to Northrop Grumman/EADS will generate 14,000 fewer jobs than if USAF had chosen Boeing to build the new tanker platform. Using publicly available data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, EPI economist Robert Scott estimates that Boeing would create 28,707 jobs at full-rate production of its KC-767 tanker model, while Northrop Grumman/EADS would generate 14,353 positions in the US to manufacture its KC-30 design (now dubbed the KC-45A) at full-rate manufacture. Scott found both contractor's own job-creation assertions to be overinflated, but noted that the Northrop/EADS team's figures diverged from his own calculations much more. In some cases, he said, the Northrop/EADS numbers were "at least 45 percent higher, and as much as 179 percent higher than what could be realistically expected."

It is however important to note that by law, the US Air Force is precluded from examining issues like jobs creation when evaluating bids and picking a winner.

Congress on the other hand will certainly be looking into the issue of US job creation and without their support the finance for an Northrop/EADS KC X is less likely to be forthcoming.


In God we trust
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1585 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4968 times:



Quoting Columbia107 (Thread starter):
Boeing said during the competition it would generate about 45,000 jobs

Boeing can say what they want but 45000 is a marketing lie. To dramatize is even so a good way to influence the simpleminded working class and politicians.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4960 times:

EPI ignores the jobs that will be created by the assembly of civil A330Fs in Alabama, and the value of establishing a second centre of excellence in large jetliner assembly in the USA to the US economy.

(And the 767 remains the inferior tanker, too.)


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

apparently Boeing has little fait the KC767 can be competitive without the foundation of the Air Force program.

Boeing Says Plan For Tankers at Risk If It Loses Protest

By AUGUST COLE
June 18, 2008; Page B3

If Boeing Co. loses its protest of the Air Force's decision to buy at least $40 billion worth of aerial refueling tankers from a competitor, it may abandon plans to sell its own tanker internationally.

Boeing had counted on the Pentagon to provide enough production volume to make an international tanker business viable, said Mark McGraw, the executive in charge of the Chicago company's tanker program. "Without that foundation of the Air Force program, it's very hard to be competitive in that international market," he said.


What would be possible customers for the KC767? It hasn't been ordered for 6 years I believe.


User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4869 times:



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2):
EPI ignores the jobs that will be created by the assembly of civil A330Fs

No, not at all. There would be no additional jobs unless they open a second assembly line. Any A-330F orders that do materialize will be assembled by the very same workers who would be slapping together European made parts for the the KC-45.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2):
value of establishing a second centre of excellence in large jetliner assembly in the USA to the US economy.

Any "value" derived from having an assembly line in Alabama is more than offset by the loss of manufacturing design, engineering and production elsewhere in the states. If the 767 line closes most of the talent used there would be shifted over to other product lines. If 767 production continues then more talent and expertise would be needed to fill out production of the 787 and 737 follow on.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2):
(And the 767 remains the inferior tanker, too.)

That all depends on what your needs are. But either way, there are countless examples of Europe procuring "inferior" locally made military products over the years. The fact remains that while it may be arguable that the EADS tanker is in some way superior, no one, not even the Air Force has said that the KC-767 does not meet or exceed all requirements.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
apparently Boeing has little fait the KC767 can be competitive without the foundation of the Air Force program.

Well considering that the USAF is by far the largest operator of tankers in the world if you are shut out of that market it makes it kind of hard to compete elsewhere unless you have some sort of government subsidy as EADS does.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4855 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 4):
Well considering that the USAF is by far the largest operator of tankers in the world if you are shut out of that market it makes it kind of hard to compete elsewhere unless you have some sort of government subsidy as EADS does.

and that friends, brings us back in the todays real aerospace world..

Lawmakers pressing to boost NASA spending concede they will fall short of what the coalition of aerospace industries wants — 1 percent of the nation's $2.7 trillion federal budget next year — or $27 billion, an increase of 48 percent.

The poll found overwhelming support for NASA's mission and majority backing for a $27 billion NASA budget. But it also found opposition to a federal tax hike to help cut the five-year gap in manned U.S. space operations, with 57 percent opposed and 43 percent in favor.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5843539.html


User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alien (Reply 4):
Any "value" derived from having an assembly line in Alabama is more than offset by the loss of manufacturing design, engineering and production elsewhere in the states. If the 767 line closes most of the talent used there would be shifted over to other product lines. If 767 production continues then more talent and expertise would be needed to fill out production of the 787 and 737 follow on.

So what you are saying is that if NG/EADS have a plant in alabama then jobs won't be created, simply moved from a different place but if boeing got it then jobs would actually be created and not simply moved?

Quoting Alien (Reply 4):
No, not at all. There would be no additional jobs unless they open a second assembly line. Any A-330F orders that do materialize will be assembled by the very same workers who would be slapping together European made parts for the the KC-45.

So now what you are saying is that if boeing win the contract and have to buld more planes then they will need more employees but if EADS wants to build more planes then they already have enough workers to do it? Interesting concepts you have here.

Quoting Alien (Reply 4):
Well considering that the USAF is by far the largest operator of tankers in the world if you are shut out of that market it makes it kind of hard to compete elsewhere unless you have some sort of government subsidy as EADS does.

Well, roll on a new RFP! May the [STRIKE]best[/STRIKE] boeing tanker win  duck 

Fred


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21457 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

If NG is so confident in the KC-45, why is neither EADS nor the A330 mentioned on their promotional website http://www.americasnewtanker.com/ ? Or in any of their radio ads? They are afraid of something, mainly the American people.

They also claim the KC-45 will "support" 48,000 jobs, not create them. Boeing's false claim is that they will CREATE 44,000 jobs.

The difference is that NG may be counting potential job losses in that inflated number if they lose, while Boeing, in their inflated number, is only counting new jobs created. If they factor in the jobs lost due to the 767 line closing (a transfered job means a job not created on the civilian side for another program), what are the new false inflated numbers?  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21457 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4773 times:

It's also 1/2 way down the "Tanker Truths" page where EADS is first mentioned. Up until then, each snippet of a full article they post makes no mention of EADS or the A330, but each one uses the word AMERICA in it at least once. It's comical. If an international tanker such as the KC-30 (whoops, changed to 45 so that you won't remember) is a great idea, why wouldn't NG be proud and advertise their partnership?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4495 times:



Quoting Columbia107 (Thread starter):
Boeing said during the competition it would generate about 45,000 jobs with its tanker work, with about 85 percent of the aircraft's components of US origin. Northrop and EADS have said in the wake of their win that there will be about 44,000 positions involved in the US in their tanker work. Roughly 60 percent of their design will be from US-built parts.



Quoting Columbia107 (Thread starter):
In early June, the Economic Policy Institute, a self-proclaimed independent, non-profit and non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C., issued a study claiming that the Air Force's KC-X tanker award to Northrop Grumman/EADS will generate 14,000 fewer jobs than if USAF had chosen Boeing to build the new tanker platform



Quoting Columbia107 (Thread starter):
Using publicly available data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, EPI economist Robert Scott estimates that Boeing would create 28,707 jobs at full-rate production of its KC-767 tanker model, while Northrop Grumman/EADS would generate 14,353 positions in the US to manufacture its KC-30 design (now dubbed the KC-45A) at full-rate manufacture.



Quoting Columbia107 (Thread starter):
Northrop/EADS team's figures diverged from his own calculations much more. In some cases, he said, the Northrop/EADS numbers were "at least 45 percent higher, and as much as 179 percent higher than what could be realistically expected."



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 1):
Quoting Columbia107 (Thread starter):
Boeing said during the competition it would generate about 45,000 jobs

Boeing can say what they want but 45000 is a marketing lie. To dramatize is even so a good way to influence the simpleminded working class and politicians.

But, NG/EADS inflating their numbers by as much as 179% isn't a "marketing lie"?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2):
EPI ignores the jobs that will be created by the assembly of civil A330Fs in Alabama, and the value of establishing a second centre of excellence in large jetliner assembly in the USA to the US economy.

Since we are only talking about the USAF Tankers, the A-330F numbers are meaningless. BTW, the A-330F will not be built in the US if EADS/NG doesn't get the contract.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4420 times:

Government programs may move jobs, but they never create them. Government programs are financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which reduce what is available to private sector employers. Government programs should look for the best way to accomplish the goals of the program, not create jobs. The only exceptions I can see is programs with the express goal of helping disadvantaged people or depressed areas gain better employment options. In that case their MAY be some advantage to moving jobs. In such cases it may be worth it to help the poor, but it must be kept in mind that any departure from free market principles will result in a less efficient overall economy.

There may be legitimate national security concerns to having aerospace jobs leave the country, but not economic concerns. Military utility and costs are the most important consideration here. Otherwise, one is using government money to keep jobs IN the country - money that comes from taxes that keep jobs OUT of the country. This is self defeating. If American companies want to do better, they should look beyond next quarters earnings report and concentrate on building great products that customers want. There are plenty of US companies, even in Aerospace, that are good in that area and compete well in the global marketplace. Giving the impression that politics and misguided economic nationalism matter more than merit in procurement decisions only encourages businesses to go down the wrong path.


User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4393 times:

Will create more jobs eeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh!!!

I would like to quote a comment which was posted on another website in relation to the Boeing GAO decision its from this site:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25281226

Here is the text from Paul D:

"What amazes me the most about Boeing's complaint on the KC-45 tanker award going to the NG - EADS team is that Boeing thinks this will send American jobs overseas. There is no program in the aerospace industry that sent more American jobs overseas than the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Boeing not only sent fabrication jobs overseas but they also gave away American engineering design technology on how to design an aircraft wing. This short -sighted financial decision by Boeing will send an entire industry overseas..."

Well I guess this guy has thought deeper about this than some, I would say he's 100% correct about how many jobs (probably more than the difference between Boeing and Northrop making the KC-45) have been lost due to foreign companies making a large part of the B787, plus the high costs of flying all those parts on specially converted B747's.

I wonder if Northrop could use this ammunition against the politicians in congress and see how much humble pie they would have to swallow thanks to this decision by Boeing.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

If Airbus wants to have both enough capital and enough expertise to make the A350 competitive, it will have to do the same things that Boeing did for the 787. Boeing simply did not have either the money or the people to pull off such a high-risk project in the usual way.

The US aerospace industry benefits a lot from foreign projects - the problem politically is that the job losses from globalization come in big packages. The gains, although larger than the losses, come in smaller packages and so are not as noticeable. Countries that use government money and rules to protect their industries tend to loose out in long run as capital and smart people flee to less restrictive places. That is one reason, BTW, that we don't see Russian, Chinese or Indian aerospace goods in the west very much. These countries are so afraid of loosing what they have that they stifle any real, market centered innovation that would otherwise exist. These policies in the long run cost jobs as protected industries get less competitive - and take money, capital and minds away from more competitive industries while they slowly die.


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2293 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4313 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 10):
Government programs may move jobs, but they never create them. Government programs are financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which reduce what is available to private sector employers.

I have to partially disagree. Government programs certainly do create jobs where they're spending money, and reduce jobs in other area where the taxpayer could otherwise spend their money.

This is no different than if I decide to buy a big flat screen TV rather than a Armani suit. I'm "moving" jobs away from the clothing sector to the electronics sector. One difference is choice, of course - I can decide to buy the suit or the TV, but I don't really get a choice in the government procurement program.

In both cases the money is used to buy stuff and hire people, and those expenditures go on to buy more stuff and hire more people in subcontractors, and so on down the line.

The first problem with government spending is more in the secondary effects: it tend to spend money on things that result in work that's not very interesting economically. Consider that at some point everybody in the U.S. needed a buggy whip. The government could, hypothetically, have come in and said, OK, we'll tax everyone, order the buggy whips, and send one to every person in the U.S. Done well, you could, at least theoretically, do that as efficiently as the private sector. In practice, not everyone will want the same style of buggy whip, some rebels will not want one at all, some people might not wait to replace their buggy whips as long as they would otherwise (since they’re having to pay for the replacement anyway*) and worse, when cars suddenly come along and the government has a decades long purchase agreement and suddenly stuck with millions of pointless buggy whips.

A second major factor is the lack of competition. Government programs tend to purchase stuff at fairly high cost, since there is often little or no competition, especially once the contracts are signed. The same problem in a different guise is the lack of quality - when quality is enforced only through some sort of inspection/auditing program, the manufacturers only have an incentive to pass inspection. You don't have the consumers real weapon hanging over their head - you don't produce good stuff - OK, I'll buy from your competitor, and your business *dies*. And here “good” is defined as “actually meeting my needs” not “passes inspection.”

So the problem is really that government is inefficient in creating jobs and value as a secondary effect. That million dollars will hire (more or less) 20 people no matter who's cutting the check, but it's the generations of spending and production after that that do poorly (usually) with government spending.

In a similar vein, people often tout that the space program has had seven dollars of economic benefit for every dollar spent. That's nice, but private R&D-type spending usually returns $15-20 for each dollar invested. (Which is neither here-nor-there as an argument for supporting the space program.)



*You see this same effect with cell phones in the U.S. Since the vast majority are sold on two year contracts for very little (or no) additional cost, many cell phone are replaced after two years.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4262 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 13):
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 10):
Government programs may move jobs, but they never create them. Government programs are financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which reduce what is available to private sector employers.

I have to partially disagree. Government programs certainly do create jobs where they're spending money, and reduce jobs in other area where the taxpayer could otherwise spend their money.

This is no different than if I decide to buy a big flat screen TV rather than a Armani suit. I'm "moving" jobs away from the clothing sector to the electronics sector. One difference is choice, of course - I can decide to buy the suit or the TV, but I don't really get a choice in the government procurement program.

What I sum up as efficiency or a "less efficient overall economy", you expand on, but there are no fundamental contradictions between your post and mine. So I find it puzzling when you claim to "disagree" with me. I must be misunderstanding you in some way.

For example -

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 13):
Government programs certainly do create jobs where they're spending money, and reduce jobs in other area where the taxpayer could otherwise spend their money.

How is this not "moving jobs" just as I was describing?


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7383 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4114 times:

How many jobs will be created by converting KC135E to KC135R, which seems the most obvious short term answer.

User currently offlinePlaneWasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

If you only want jobs, not the best option, why do you import anything at all?

User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4089 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
What would be possible customers for the KC767? It hasn't been ordered for 6 years I believe.

None and that is the entire point. The A330 is one generation newer than the 767 and is a superior airplane to the 767. This will flip when the 777F comes into the picture.

If the politicians want a Boeing product they will need to: (a) admit there cannot be competition as there is only one US airframe manufacturer willing to build the airplanes; (b) admit that (a) will virtually end any cooperation with Europe so kiss all of those F-35's going to Europe good bye (the Europeans are just looking for an excuse to get out of the program anyway); (c) insist that Boeing supply a tanker version of the 777F within two years; and (d) don't say a word about the "cost" of (c) as it will be usury.


User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3916 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 17):
None and that is the entire point. The A330 is one generation newer than the 767 and is a superior airplane to the 767. This will flip when the 777F comes into the picture.

Amen ! now your talking bro, maybe Boeing should be looking at that for the re-run. Though they will probably out price themselves as a B767200 is in the range of US$ 125-135 million and a B777200 is in the range of US$ 200-225 million before discounts of course. He He. The A330200 is in the range of US$ 139-145 million. (Note the prices are commercial pricing and do not include the large discounts usually given for large orders.

I feel sorry for the american taxpayer whose money is being wasted in this political mess. At this rate the USAF won't start getting new tankers until 2012 !!!!!


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1585 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3864 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 17):
This will flip when the 777F comes into the picture.

The 777F is to big and cost prohibitive. You should forget the 777F coming into picture.

The 787F would be the much better choice from size and economics point just if Boeing would be able to deliver.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3832 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 19):
The 787F would be the much better choice from size and economics point just if Boeing would be able to deliver.

Same for any freighter version of the 787 anytime in the next 20 years.

Boeing is going to have to pull something out of its hat if it is going to beat NG on an airplane v. airplane basis.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3826 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 15):
How many jobs will be created by converting KC135E to KC135R, which seems the most obvious short term answer.

Not that many, maybe 2,000 new jobs, or so. But, it will keep the CFM-56-B2 production line open for a few more years.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 17):
The A330 is one generation newer than the 767 and is a superior airplane to the 767

Just because the A-330 is a newer design, does not mean it is superior to the B-767 in this application.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 18):
Though they will probably out price themselves as a B767200 is in the range of US$ 125-135 million and a B777200 is in the range of US$ 200-225 million before discounts of course. He He. The A330200 is in the range of US$ 139-145 million. (Note the prices are commercial pricing and do not include the large discounts usually given for large orders.

I believe the prices for the KC-767AT was $120M (average, each) vs. the KC-30B price of $150M.


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3803 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Just because the A-330 is a newer design, does not mean it is superior to the B-767 in this application.

Unfortunately it does in this instance. The NG airplane can fly more further and cheaper (ton miles/fuel unit) than the Boeing airplane.

TopBoom your desire to see a Boeing airplane selected is well documented. If Boeing had an airplane that could compete with the NG airplane, I would be right there with you. However, Boeing just does not have that airplane. They cannot overcome more lift capacity. Any economic advantage Boeing might have is washed away when you consider it will take 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 Boeing flights to match the lift. Fewer engines turning to move the same tonnage equates to a better deal.

Also, for all of Boeing's self pronounced experience in the tanker business, they seemed to have issues delivering tankers to Japan and Italy.

Boeing cannot win this thing without: (a) the decision being made by politicians (turns this intyo a jobs program instead of providing the best war fighting tool; or (b) Boeing somehow finding a way to introduce a 777 into the mix. If (a) is the answer, they just need to say so and get on with it.


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3768 times:

Ugh, when did JOBS become the be-all-end-all of every single policy decision in this country?


The government is bloated an inefficient enough as is, not sure what JOBS has to do with choosing the best airplane for a given mission profile.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3748 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 1):
Boeing can say what they want but 45000 is a marketing lie. To dramatize is even so a good way to influence the simpleminded working class and politicians.

So 45000 jobs quoted by Boeing is a LIE...but EADS quoting 44,000 US jobs for the fraction of the work, final assembly in the US is true?

No one is fooled.


25 Ken777 : Government programs can create jobs. Look at state universities, which not only create jobs within the university, but also within the community. The
26 Osiris30 : Right after democracy was established I believe If the mission is to offload half the fuel capacity of the 767 tanker, how (and I'm dieing to hear yo
27 Post contains links Zeke : Interesting comments, considering that NG is saying that the KC-45 will generate 14,147 jobs, the additional positions to get to their 48,337 job is
28 AutoThrust : NG never said they will create 44000 jobs they said they will support that much from 230 companies in the US. They quoted 14,147 which will be direct
29 Gsosbee : Been there done that. Do you not understand how much it costs to put KC-135's in the air from three tag-along-bases just to refuel a squadron of F-16
30 Osiris30 : I suppose the question is where are the loiter points going to be. We've been 'spoiled' by recent combat. There hasn't been a credible threat to an a
31 Ken777 : Actually I believe McCain is more likely to use the military. He grew up in the elite levels of the military with a grandfather and father being admi
32 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The primary mission is air refueling. The new tanker will do this on more than 99% of all missions flown. The average fuel off-loaded will be less th
33 Post contains links Zeke : NG also have press releases on a state by state basis if you look at their web site ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html ) , an
34 Gsosbee : The mission profile can be changed if the aircraft is more flexible. It is not what has happened in the past - it is how can we do it better in the f
35 NorCal : The USAF will still like the same number of booms in the air for any given mission because more booms mean the planes will get refueled quicker. If y
36 Ken777 : There are more than a few top notch state schools. MIT on the Right Coast isn't too bad USC, UCLA, Berkley on the Left Coast deliver some good gradua
37 Gsosbee : I believe they bought all of the KC10's that they could afford, and the reason they bought them is the fact they can haul cargo and refuel at the sam
38 KC135TopBoom : No, the mission cannot change, to the degree you think it can. The KC-10 carries most of the cargo shipped on tankers, now, for a total of only 1% of
39 Zeke : Where has Boeing ever said these numbers ? I cannot see how it could ever be this high, that is even more then the C17 production, or what Boeing was
40 WAH64D : Sorry, the above quote is ill-educated at best and utter bollocks into the bargain. If this, but that. Very funny that the Boeing fanboys try to limi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Says KC-767AT More Survivable? posted Fri Apr 4 2008 04:25:14 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award posted Fri Mar 14 2008 16:13:12 by RedFlyer
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Will Boeing Get A "bone" From Usaf? posted Sat Mar 1 2008 01:06:20 by KC135TopBoom
Will KC-45 Replace AMC Charters? posted Fri Jan 11 2008 17:01:51 by CFMitch56
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
US Will Offer JSF Partners Multi-year Orders posted Mon Mar 12 2007 21:04:18 by Tak
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced? posted Sat May 28 2011 03:44:10 by OyKIE
Shady Boeing: No Winglets On KC-46A posted Thu Apr 7 2011 17:42:10 by AirRyan
US Aerospace/Space Industry Jobs posted Thu Nov 4 2010 17:41:46 by boacvc10
New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids posted Thu Sep 16 2010 10:13:01 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Military Cuts Jobs Amid Restructure posted Thu Sep 9 2010 02:47:36 by BMIFlyer
Boeing Says KC-X Contest Enters "phase 2" posted Fri Aug 20 2010 16:39:45 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format