columbia107
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:42 am

Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:25 am

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
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:50 pm



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.”
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:09 pm

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.)
 
keesje
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:51 pm

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:55 pm



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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:15 pm



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
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1528
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:33 pm



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
Image
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:47 pm

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.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:50 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:24 am



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.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:50 am

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.
 
dougbr2006
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:26 am

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.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 am

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.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:38 pm



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.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:17 am



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?
 
bennett123
Posts: 7424
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:18 pm

How many jobs will be created by converting KC135E to KC135R, which seems the most obvious short term answer.
 
planewasted
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:47 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:24 pm

If you only want jobs, not the best option, why do you import anything at all?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:27 pm



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.
 
dougbr2006
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:44 pm



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 avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:18 pm



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.”
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:44 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:57 pm



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.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:58 pm



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.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:03 am

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
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:14 am



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.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9020
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:12 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 10):
Government programs may move jobs, but they never create them.

Government programs can create jobs. Look at state universities, which not only create jobs within the university, but also within the community. Then add the talent that is graduated from these universities and the lifetime of work they can do - which creates jobs down the line.

Government programs, such as road building, creates jobs and the income from these jobs support other jobs - even if only for the period of construction.

Government programs in the area of health is also a job creation and a job protection effort. A classic example is in the late 50s when the Salk polio vaccine was provided to the population under government programs. Jobs created to produce and administer the program and job protection from the reduction and eventual (virtual) elimination of polio as a critical illness. Jobs lost in this effort were mainly in the production and use of iron lungs.

And the neat part of these job creation government programs is that the people in those jobs pay taxes, as do the companies that are successful in the bidding for the work. In other words, when you look at the cost of the program you need to shift part of that cost from the right pocket to the left pocket of the Treasury.

Overseas expenditures obviously reduce the shifting of the money from the right pocket and the economic benefits are reduced in relation to the income and profit shift overseas.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:38 am



Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 23):
Ugh, when did JOBS become the be-all-end-all of every single policy decision in this country?

Right after democracy was established I believe  sarcastic 

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
Unfortunately it does in this instance. The NG airplane can fly more further and cheaper (ton miles/fuel unit) than the Boeing airplane.

If the mission is to offload half the fuel capacity of the 767 tanker, how (and I'm dieing to hear you explain this) will the 330 based tanker do that more cheaply? Do you even understand the average mission profile for the KC135 (and aircraft that will be replacing it)? Not every mission is max range, MTOW stuff.. good grief.

Military aircraft aren't like commercial airliners in their utilization. They have *extremely* specific rolls, don't need cross functionality. They need to get in, kill something (or help something kill something) and GTFO. That work is almost never performed even close to max range.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:20 am



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. 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.

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 based upon the US Department of Labor jobs calculator to determine the indirect jobs.

Scott Hamilton already had a good piece on this : http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn031808_1.pdf

NG have listed all their calculations on a state by state basis in that document, Boeing has not.

The KC-45 will also bring in jobs for the A330F which is not fully accounted for in this process. Likewise Boeing would use existing workers on the 767 line, and hire some more for this, but they will not create all the jobs from scratch.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:35 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 24):
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?

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 directly created.(without counting A330F).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
NG have listed all their calculations on a state by state basis in that document, Boeing has not.

Interesting...
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:03 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 26):
If the mission is to offload half the fuel capacity of the 767 tanker, how (and I'm dieing to hear you explain this) will the 330 based tanker do that more cheaply? Do you even understand the average mission profile for the KC135 (and aircraft that will be replacing it)? Not every mission is max range, MTOW stuff.. good grief.

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's on a long transit? Agreed, cost should not enter into the equation during combat operations, but it does. The Air Force knows what is coming should Obama win the election and are preparing for that massacre.

Yes on some missions, MTOW is not needed. However in today's world time on station is just as important. The NG airplane can carry (and offload) more longer. If the same was wanted, why are we going through all of this? The reason is even the "R's" are inefficient compared to more modern airplanes. Also, fewer airplanes in a combat AOR, means fewer crew at risk.

Once again, while Boeing does have an airplane that will do the mission better than the airplane being replaced, they do not have the best airplane for this mission.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:07 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 29):
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's on a long transit?

I suppose the question is where are the loiter points going to be.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 29):
However in today's world time on station is just as important. The NG airplane can carry (and offload) more longer.

We've been 'spoiled' by recent combat. There hasn't been a credible threat to an airborne tanker in a long time. If heaven forbid a conflict ever breaks out where the enemy has any extended range options and moderately advanced fighter aircraft tactics would have to be different than they are today.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Ken777
Posts: 9020
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:03 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 29):
The Air Force knows what is coming should Obama win the election and are preparing for that massacre.

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 admirals and will be more comfortable "using" the military. He is also known to he somewhat headstrong and have a short temper. All the ingredients necessary for another FUBAR like Iraq.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:41 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
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.

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 than 90,000lbs. The secondary mission of hauling cargo will be done on less than 1% of all missions flown.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Then add the talent that is graduated from these universities

Talent?  rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
The KC-45 will also bring in jobs for the A330F which is not fully accounted for in this process. Likewise Boeing would use existing workers on the 767 line, and hire some more for this, but they will not create all the jobs from scratch.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Scott Hamilton already had a good piece on this : http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Scotts...1.pdf

Okay, that was Leeham's letter last March. Now I wonder if they now think the GAO is in Boeing's back pocket, too?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
NG have listed all their calculations on a state by state basis in that document, Boeing has not.

Hmmmm?  scratchchin 

"This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs."

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q1/070212b_nr.html

To name a few states, with estimated annual state revenues:

California
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q2/070529b_nr.html

Connecticut
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q2/070612a_nr.html

Texas
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q2/070627a_nr.html

Illinois
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q3/070713b_nr.html

Florida
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q3/070802b_nr.html

Iowa
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q3/070829c_nr.html

Georgia
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q3/070921a_nr.html

Utah
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q4/071019a_nr.html

Oklahoma
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q4/071112b_nr.html

Arizona
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/news/2007/q4/071126c_nr.html

This is just 10 of the 45 states that will do some type of work on the KC-767AT.

Here are just a few of the companies that will get some of the KC-767AT work.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/program/index.html
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):

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 ) , and the have given the number of DIRECT jobs (14,147), Boeing has not done this.

Boeing will not make 44,000 direct jobs, the real number will be between 10-15,000. They have listed their methodology to say how they converted the direct to indirect jobs either.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:49 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
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 than 90,000lbs. The secondary mission of hauling cargo will be done on less than 1% of all missions flown.

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 future with fewer airplanes and people at risk.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:01 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 34):
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 future with fewer airplanes and people at risk.

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 you have one tanker trying to gas up a strike package of fighters, then the first guy might be out of gas again by the time the last one is topped off. The limiting factor isn't the offload rate of the tankers, but rather the receiving rate of the aircraft.

You will also have redundancy if one tanker were to go MX during the mission and have to return to base, or god forbid, one was shot down. The USAF doesn't work as an airline, so they won't pull booms out of the air because one larger tanker can now replace two smaller ones. If that were the case, we would have a huge fleet of KC-10s and a much smaller fleet of KC-135s. The USAF had plenty of opportunities to buy the KC-10, but they chose to buy the tanker that would fit the mission profile instead of buying the biggest most capable tanker.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9020
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:52 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
Talent?  

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 graduates

In the middle there are schools like Texas (including a little affiliate called M D Anderson) and LSU who had the insight to put their Engineering School inside the Business School to ensure their Engineering graduates were trained to be promoted into management and understand business.

There are a lot of high school graduates that can't afford the elite schools that do well in state universities - Colin Powell was one of them.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:49 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 35):
The USAF had plenty of opportunities to buy the KC-10, but they chose to buy the tanker that would fit the mission profile instead of buying the biggest most capable tanker.

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 same time. Sound familiar.

The Air Force would also like 380+F-22's, but that is not going to happen. I would not be surprised to see the tanker contract delayed for the new administration. If Gates has to make the decision (after the Air Force's issues with the CSAR and the tanker, they are pretty much out of the decision making process) NG will still win as it is obvious that Gates wants something different from what the USAF has now.

In asymmetric warfare, air superiority for the US is a given. The keys are time on station and multi-role.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:40 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 34):
The mission profile can be changed if the aircraft is more flexible. It is not what has happened in the past



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 37):
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 same time. Sound familiar.

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 all cargo shipped by air. Since the KC-X fleet will be 3X larger than the KC-10 fleet, we can assume the KC-X will still carry no more than 3% of all air cargo.

The mission will remain, get the gas to the fight, not carrying boxes, we have dedicated cargo aircraft and contractors to do that.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
Boeing will not make 44,000 direct jobs, the real number will be between 10-15,000. They have listed their methodology to say how they converted the direct to indirect jobs either.

Boeing never said that they will create 44,000 direct jobs. The number of direct jobs created by a KC-767AT contract is 18,500-19,000, if the Congress and USAF accelerate the tanker purchase, 15,000-16,000 if they do not. The number of direct jobs provided by EADS/NG remains the same, in either case.

What the Congress, USAF, EADS/NG, or Boeing ever talks about is the number of direct jobs lost if the production rate falls below 12 airplanes per year (at peak production), or if the total number of new tankers bought is reduced anywhere below the 179 total new planned tankers.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 36):
There are a lot of high school graduates that can't afford the elite schools that do well in state universities - Colin Powell was one of them.

Don't forget Rush Limbaugh, who has no college degree.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 37):
If Gates has to make the decision (after the Air Force's issues with the CSAR and the tanker, they are pretty much out of the decision making process) NG will still win as it is obvious that Gates wants something different from what the USAF has now.

While I agree the decision will be taken away from the USAF, I see no evidence SecD Gates will prefer either the EADS/NG or Boeing airplanes. Remember, Gates, like all SecDs is really a politician, not a professional military leader.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 37):
In asymmetric warfare, air superiority for the US is a given. The keys are time on station and multi-role.

That will be Air Supremacy (I'm sure that is what you ment). But, that means dedicated mission aircraft, and few multi-role aircraft. Bombers will drop bombs, fighters will provide protection and CAP, tankers will refuel, AWACS will provide Battle Management, attackers will provide CAS.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:25 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
The number of direct jobs created by a KC-767AT contract is 18,500-19,000, if the Congress and USAF accelerate the tanker purchase, 15,000-16,000 if they do not. The number of direct jobs provided by EADS/NG remains the same, in either case.

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 using for 767 production when it was in its peak. As far as I am aware, Boeing is not proposing to build any infrastructure for this project.

Remember NG is not only going to build the tanker, it also will have direct impact with the building of new facilities at the airport (buildings and fitting them out), new port facilities, new tooling other infrastructure, as well as having double the production rate, half going to the USAF, half going to the freighter program.

A lot of what NG is proposing can now be validated by the new A320 plant in Tianjin, they have started shipping the first aircraft to be assembled in that plant, had to build the plant/port etc, and for a production run of 150 aircraft.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs.

Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:27 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 26):

Military aircraft aren't like commercial airliners in their utilization. They have *extremely* specific rolls, don't need cross functionality. They need to get in, kill something (or help something kill something) and GTFO. That work is almost never performed even close to max range.

Sorry, the above quote is ill-educated at best and utter bollocks into the bargain.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 26):

If the mission is to offload half the fuel capacity of the 767 tanker, how (and I'm dieing to hear you explain this) will the 330 based tanker do that more cheaply?

If this, but that. Very funny that the Boeing fanboys try to limit mission requirements to the (low) capabilities of the KC-767. The simple fact is that the NG/EADS aircraft is more capable in almost every way and is infinitely more flexible.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 34):

The mission profile can be changed if the aircraft is more flexible.

 checkmark 

Flexibility is everything!
I AM the No-spotalotacus.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 3wheelbogey and 8 guests