The French thank John McCain for Airbus contract?
By on Mar 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The French thank John McCain for Airbus contract?
Earlier this month, Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), the parent company of France-based Airbus, won a $40 billion Air Force tanker contract, beating out Boeing, DOD’s usual go-to company for Air Force contracts. Some of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign advisers lobbied for EADS while actions by McCain himself helped the deal go through. The contract would create thousands of jobs for Airbus and thus the French have a message for McCain: “Merci.” Watch this new video from the Campaign for America’s Future:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
77 Responses to “The French thank John McCain for Airbus contract?”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Way to go , McSenile ; guess you were serious and got a "head start" with your promise of less jobs and more war , jackass.......
March 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pmWhat amazes me is how McBush polls so well against either Dem in a heads up match. Well it is early and the public won't be paying attention for months yet.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pmThat's awesome.
Love the video.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pmSo why does McCain hate American companies?
March 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pmmissmolly Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
So why does McCain hate American companies?
Because their female lobbyists are nowhere near as easy as foreign ones ..............
March 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pmThanks McSame, for all the Americans who don't have jobs now, nice of you to help the French with American dollars, I'm sure they are donating (wink, wink) lots of money to your campaign now.
From all my friends at Boeing, FCUK YOU McSame.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pmOk so is any one esle hearing the news thats breaking that in the now "imfamous" 30 second clip of Obama's preacher, Rev. Wright was actually quoting from former Reagan White House terrorism Taskforce director Edward Peck?!! The full 3 minute excerpt of the sermon is a direct quote!?
can some one confirm? with a link maybe I'm hearign this news at work and there are too many blocks on the interwebz here :o/
March 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pmThe truth is that this deal was given to Airbus to screw Patty Murray in WA.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pmThe government changed the requirements time and again to accomodate Airbus's (EADS) demands and everytime Boeing asked if they should re-submit their bid to better meet the revised requirements (ie larger plane, more cargo room, cheaper initial cost but higher life-cycle costs) the Defense Department said "don't worry, we like your bid fine- we just need to make it so they can compete..."
WA is blue and AL is red- it's that simple.
Merlin Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
What amazes me is how McBush polls so well against either Dem in a heads up match. Well it is early and the public won’t be paying attention for months yet.
_______________________________________
You nailed it. Right now the press is consumed with the Obama/Clinton battle and the video snippets of Obama's preacher -- to the point that McCain could be dancing naked under the Gateway Arch and nobody would be paying the slightest attention (except for a few tourists who would ask him to get out of their camera frame for snapshots).
After the conventions, once there's no battle on the Dem side the media can exploit, the focus will again return to McCain, and all his stupid remarks, his lobbyist ties, and his endorsements from bigots.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pmI have been going ballistic about this for weeks. It would be nice if someone in the MSM picked this up, but short of those cities affected, no one knows about it.
It’s about goddamn time it's at least getting some blog space! BILLIONS of American dollars going to a company outside of the US (and yes, it’s partially here with Northrop Grumman not just EADS) vs. completely built in America by Americans (granted probably with parts from all over the world).
This is an abomination and McCain and his lobbyists should be deeply ashamed!
Thankfully Boeing is fighting it and will hopefully prevail. While they had issues from within the people were taken care of and to punish Boeing and the American workers, ESPECIALLY during this time of crisis for people who are losing jobs left and right, abomination doesn’t start to cut it.
OT, sorry. Buckie, this is for you.
I inquired into this last night.
ME: I just learned that the US pulled out of the ICC (right after the first Gdub infliction, er, election). I hadn’t realized that. Does that mean that the world court cannot touch him or Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al? Am I uselessly saving my frequent flyer miles and Hilton points for a trial that can never take place?
Responses:
It all depends on whether the next president will re-join or not My bet is on “not”; sliding out is always easier than getting back in. (Beyond the usual schoolyard jokes, see also: Kyoto, Protocols and Geneva, Conventions). It depends also on whether — and how far afield — the cabal is likely to travel, once out of office; I think there are (or will be) some warrants waiting in different parts of Europe (much as there are in some parts of Vermont ). We know that the Shrub hates travel and will be happy to play a turnip in Crawford for the rest of his natural span, so, short of a rendition, he’s not going to get his just deserts. The others — Cheney, Rummy-tum-tum, et all… Who knows?
and
Our extrication from the ICC certainly makes it seem like they knew “going forward” that they were going to break a slew of international laws. And we certainly wouldn’t want any fureners telling us what’s right and what’s wrong, nor do the members of this administration want to go through what Kissinger goes through when he tries to travel abroad, “No, we really can’t land in that country…i’m wanted; no that one’s no good either…yeah, i’m wanted there too. What can i say, so many war crimes, so little time.”
They probably still will have warrants, but not international warrants. Paraguay, i’m sure, will welcome them with open arms.
All this to say that I doubt we will see Bush et al at the Hague anytime soon.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pmthemancaredonce Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 4:13 pmMarch 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This contract is creating 1000’s of American jobs. Every plane is being built in the good ol’ USA. All the materials are being bought from us manufacturers also. And the French design is a much better airplane for the job they need!
Bull- they're flying the planes over from Europe to install the fuel bladders... I'd hardly call that made in the USA.
Also- the Airbus 330 is almost a copy of the 767- it was designed to be used in the same market-
March 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pmBut Airbus (Northrup is just a partner- don't be fooled) wanted to use the biggest version while the initial requirements required a smaller plane that could operate from smaller airfields and do it cheaper over the life cycle of the aircraft...
Boeing's 767 based tanker is based on the smallest and most fuel-efficient version of the plane.
Airbus's 330 is based on the largest and least fuel-efficient, so while the initial purchase price may be cheaper the planes will cost BILLIONS more to operate and not be able to fly out as many airfields...
themancaredonce Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This contract is creating 1000’s of American jobs. Every plane is being built in the good ol’ USA. All the materials are being bought from us manufacturers also. And the French design is a much better airplane for the job they need!
Stop writing inaccurate , stupid piss , nitwit ........
While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Alabama, parts would come from suppliers across the globe
That isn't creating even 1 job ; much less "1,000's" , you GOP stooge..........
March 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm... the DoD changed the requirements so that Airbus could bid and then rejected Boeings offer of a 777 based tanker that would be EVEN bigger, carry more troops,fuel,etc. over longer distances.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pmIt was a political move to screw Patty Murray in WA.
The state of Arizona can recall him at any time. But they are too busy having him steal all the water for them that Fort Desert Not Springs just won't provide any longer.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pmOT but very interesting. Worth a read.
This over at the DailyKos
Politico Reveals Why Media Won't Report That Nomination is Settled
by DHinMI
Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:05:15 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/21/16328/6508/382/481694Politico
March 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm1500 to be exact and $100 billon dollars for mobile al over the years!!
March 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pmCosting the U.S. taxpayer BILLIONS more than the Boeing plane and giving them an inferior aircraft for the mission... ask any pilot whether they prefer the 767 to the 330- they all do.
themancaredonce Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
1500 to be exact and $100 billon dollars for mobile al over the years!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You want everyone to believe that Mobile Alabama , the city where final assembly of the plane takes place , is going to receive 100% of a foreign company's money from a defense contract ?
Yeah , right.......
BTW
The 1,500 is a HIGH ESTIMATE ; and rather unlikely.
And all this country needs is another 65,000 new jobs or so , to match all the jobs lost last month , thanks to the worst president in US history.......
March 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pmFor once al Stone Pile has hit on the correct answer... that's $$$ to AL which is RED instead of $$$ to WA which is blue... the only problem is that such blatanly political considerations are ALWAYS bad for the military.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pmThat's why we have the Osprey instead of a new high-speed heavy lifting helicopter- built in Republican districts...
themancaredonce seems to miss the point that sending our jobs out of America is going to be slowed way down soon if not stopped altogether...at least the ones that provide equipment for the United States Government.
How can you ever look up from the ground knowing that the bush admin is buying it's presidential helicopters from forign manufacturers. Now this.....How un-American.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pmFlagging #11 as lies and distortion.
And one town getting something out of a 40+ billion contract is peanuts. What about WA, IL and the other states where Boeing is? This is the most outrageous distortion!
March 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pmPay no attention to the troll behind the curtain.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pmthemancaredonce Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I would of thought for sure the Pro’s would have been very happy for the French! You both could have a USA hate contest. I bet yall would win by a landside!!!
Yeah , we should learn to "love" the US and McShitstain do ; by outsourcing supplying our own military ..........
Good call there , you anti-American schmuck
March 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pmI would of thought for sure the Pro’s would have been very happy for the French! You both could have a USA hate contest. I bet yall would win by a landside!!!
read the posts, al stonepile, YOUR guys are SCREWING the MILITARY to score a few cheap political points... I think you'd win by a country mile in a 'screw the USA' contest, republicans do every time.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pmWe are outsourcing our national security. The more our military mechanization relies on foreign sources the less capable we become to manufacture on our own.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm# hil_1 Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
can some one confirm? with a link maybe I’m hearign this news at work and there are too many blocks on the interwebz here :o/
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html
March 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pmMcCain received around $14,000 in contributions from EADS employees, more than any other politician.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pmMcCain then receives Alabama governors endorsement.
My, my! Almost seems as though the preachers are the candidates for the POTUS. Here is a case of McBush trying not to be outdone by Obama.... snark off
McCain Spiritual Guide Accused Gov't Of Enabling 'Black Genocide'
March 21, 2008 12:32 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/mccain-spiritual-guide-ac_n_92757.html
March 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pmIf I were a young person who was seriously thinking about entering the military, I would have to think twice. I would not want a foreign company making any of my battle gear, uniforms, weapons, air planes, etc.
Especially since we are now involved in the Global War On Terror (rolling eyes).
Seriously, what's to keep foreign companies from sabotaging
March 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pmour gear?
themancaredonce Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Racists endorse Obama on candidate’s website
Racist the scared man posts off-topic and endorses anti-American profiteering on ThinkProgress website.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pmAnd the thousands of jobs that would have been created in this country are created in France instead. I will not say Merci to McBush, I'll say fu(k you.
Hopefully the Democrats make this into an advertising campaign.
Actually, I wonder why the Democrats are not yet running ads introducing America to the real John McCain. They need to get started now. It takes a while to "catapult the propaganda" as Bush says.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pmHow about it al StonePile?
March 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pmStill contend that the 330 is the plane for the job and that France is the place to build it?
Or have the talk shows you listen to not told you how to respond when confronted with facts that don't fit your 'reality'?
What amazes me is how McBush polls so well against either Dem in a heads up match. Well it is early and the public won’t be paying attention for months yet.
That is because the 1,000 anonymous potential voters that the pollsters talk to are mostly the people who get their news from the TeeVee. All they are seeing is that McCain is a "moderate" and a "maverick". They haven't been exposed to his flip-flops, pandering, and serious lack of knowledge on the subjects we need a President to be up on. Once the Democrats start introducing America to the real John McCain (a bunch of 30 second commercials hearing him say one thing and then a couple of months later, or a year later, say the opposite). They should also run ads showing all the times that McBush has conflated Iran and AQ, and then show him saying that he "misspoke" (four times).
The polls right now show the opinions of the seriously uninformed and uninvolved. All they are voting on is their prior knowledge of who McCain once was, Clinton's name recognition and Obama's pastor Wright.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pmIf the Democrats would stop squabbling (Hillary, are you listening?) they would focus on the egregious offenses by McCain.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pmYou are getting a reputation as a liar. That has nothing to do with Obama's website.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pmWhy does McCain hate the American Worker? This Contract, had it been rightfully granted to Boeing would have created 30,000 to 40,000 desperatly needed new jobs. At a time when the US economy is imploding, we needed this. Instead, McCain sells out his country!
March 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pmDaimlerChrysler owns 30% of EADS. Think about that next Mercedes.
Also:
EADS North America, part of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., spent $1.3 million in 2007 to lobby the U.S. government on defense and homeland security funding.
The North American arm of the European aerospace and defense contractor, which is the parent of Airbus, spent $650,000 in the second half of the year, according to a form posted online Feb. 11 by the Senate's public records office.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/20/ap4800737.html
March 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pmHow can you ever look up from the ground knowing that the bush admin is buying it’s presidential helicopters from forign manufacturers. Now this…..How un-American.
On the other hand, they put off buying up-armored vehicles to protect our soldiers in Iraq for a couple of years (from a company in Africa that already makes them) to wait until 2010 so that one of the FOB Defense Contractors could make them instead. And how many of our soldiers died because of that decision?
March 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pmJim-
March 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pmIt's not just that this decision is bad for the economy- it's also bad for the military.
In essence the military is paying for a cut-rate copy of a plane that is too big to operate from forward air-fields, too inefficient to save money, and also has the unique distinction of being both out-dated and un-tested... they've successfully completed 1 test of the air-to-air refueling system which is a de-engineered copy of Boeing's old system.
It's a joke, or it would be if it weren't so sadly pathetic...
I meant "reverse-engineered", I just get so upset...
March 21st, 2008 at 5:13 pmthemancaredonce Says:
Racists endorse Obama on candidate’s website
In the spirit of openness and inclusiveness, Obama set up a place on his website where anyone can set up a page. The supposed "New Black Panthers" set up a page endorsing Obama. When he found out about it, he took it down stating that he did not want endorsements from them.
So, it turns out the John McBush begged the Rev. Haggee, a white hate mongering preacher, to endorse him. Isn't that wonderful!
March 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pmWell, since we have shifted the emphasis of the thread to Obama; here's an interesting story/clip from Huffpo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html
March 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pmActually folks IMHO you all have some good and bad points and this deal is a lot more complicated and INTERESTING than is being made-out in the individual comments.
Allow me to mess around with this a bit:
Boeing had the home-ground and historical advantage (the plane being replaced is the Boeing KC-135, precursor to the 707) but still felt the need to “seal the deal” by bribing most especially the DoD official in charge of contract approval with a guaranteed job and bennies whilst she (I forget her name) was still at the Pentagon (and there HAD to be a few others too being offered carrots).
EVEN if Boeing hadn’t tried to stack things in their favor, the Airbus is THE ONLY POSSIBLE MODERN COMPETITOR. Boeing LOST the contract because of CORRUPTION, ergo EADS/Northrop BECOME THE PREFERRED CONTRACTOR
(A+ B- A = B)
Now, Boeing fired a few people, paid a fine and then insisted on re-submitting their bid as a clean slate.
Meanwhile it would appear that EADS has latched onto McCain and thrown him some campaign contributions to maintain his opposition to the Boeing deal. That smacks of corruption also, though it’s less direct than Boeing’s efforts.(There’s also some chat ‘out there’ that McCain was getting money from EADS a while BEFORE the Boeing maneuverings became public, but I haven’t researched the whole thing myself—did Boeing give McCain money too?—I don’t know yet).
SO…there’s proven corruption on one side, possible (likely) corruption on the other and lots of bullshit all around.
Hobson’s choice.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pmWhile the original deal was thrown out do to kick-backs 5th Estate, this new deal stinks on ice...
March 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pmDoD procurement officers reacieved kick-backs to rubberstamp the original deal and Boeing got a black-eye, no doubt. And I'm not one of those who advocates for buying the US equipment no matter what... that being said,
I still think the Air Force made a mistake buying F-16's instead of Saab Viggens which were a much better plane for the small field attack/fighter mision that the Air Force envisioned for the F-16.
What isn't bullshit is the fact that the 767 is a better plane for this mission.
Will the press bother McLiar about this?
Or does he get a free pass on this one too?
Negligent and reckless John McCain killed 132 American sailors on the USS Forrestal in Viet Nam
http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and_the_uss_forresta.htm
March 21st, 2008 at 6:04 pmOh, and quite a few here seem to be stuck in the mid-20th century regarding major defense contractors, their products and who builds them, who buys them and how "foreign" they are.
The current US M119 105 mmm Towed Howitzer is a British design licensed (from BAE) by the US ( since the late 1980's) .
The UK/Italian designed EH-101 will replace the Sikorsky CH-3's used by the President, next year.
The US Coastguard has had Eurocopter Dauphins for years.
The new UH-72 Laktoa is a military version of the Eurocopter EC-145, built by EADS-North America
The US Navy replaced its Ammerican T-2 Buckeye carrier jet trainer with the British BAE T-45 Goshawk in 1991, service is expected to continue until 2035 at least.
The M2AI/2 Abrams Tank uses British Chobham Armor (and US supplied depleted Uranium armor)and a German Rheinmetall 120mmm smoothbore main gun.
The F-35 Lightining 11 was developed in part with $5 billion of UK money and its chief test pilot is in the RAF.
BAE owns Armour Holdings which has just been given the contract to build and deliver Mine Resistant Armored Vehicles because because US-suppliers couldn't produce fast enough/the Pentagon did not prioritize their manufacture.
BAE also provides computer security systems and services to the Pentagon.
The rubber boats the SEALS use are Zodiacs, which are FRENCH.
BAE is a significant shareholder via EADS, in Airbus.
So...just some examples of how patriotically equipped our forces are with superior US equipment. Take a minute to question your own assumptions before making declaartive reactionary statements.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pmStill doesn't change the fact that the 767 is the better plane for the stated mission...
March 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm... and that Airbus got the contract because they're "building" the planes in AL, not WA.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:33 pmAh... Belac....
March 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pmRe F-16 versus Viggen etc.
If I remember the YF-16 and YF-17 were built in response to an ovararching all-forces dog-fighting requirment with economy of a common platform also important and multi-role functinality secondary or tertiary,
Seems to me both ended up serving the Multi-role mission by necissity and pretty well too.
Had the US licensed the Viggen that would have been an excellent choice too ( JA37/AJ-37, awesome rough field operation etc.) but apart from the NOT US DESIGNED aspect the USAF didn't need rough field capability---and still doesn't. Kinda stupid, what could it hurt? But there you go....
ooooh bad spelling by me..apologies!
March 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pmAhh but the rough field capability would be an asset in the current conflict- allow operation from short fields and forward bases/ like Afghanistan.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pmF-16 is a dog.
Although I agree with you that the military has benefited from European equipment, but I argue for the best tool for the job- whoever makes it.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:44 pmUS helicopters would have been lightyears behind the competition without Sikorsky...
I wish the Marines would buy the Tornado for close air support...
etc. etc.
and the YF-17 (F-18) did turn out to be a pretty decent aircraft, but the F-16 was a dog, built for an obsolete mission (knife-fighting) that was purchased solely to appease political interests... which is why I'm against the Airbus.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:49 pmsorry my posts are disjointed, I'm on cold medication again.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:50 pmbelac..back to 767 v A320/330 per contract specs...
I have a bias for the Airbus, but I'm not about to argue for it as I don't enough comparitive data and I could be wrong of course--or indeed I could be eight, but in a way, so what? If I could prove mepiraccly that the Airbus is the better bet--operationally, economically etc the USAF will either buy what THEY want, or what Congress wants, however they decide.
I haven;t thought it through but couldn't they work up a modular tanker system for use with the C-17? I LOVE that plane!
March 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pmdamn typing again! sorry!
March 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pmI believe that such modular systems do exist. A-4's used to refuel one another from drop-tanks in Vietnam... ask McCain about that one.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pmDon't know about C-17, think it's a fuel hog although it does have impressive short/rough field performance.
Belac,,,,
"..and the YF-17 (F-18) did turn out to be a pretty decent aircraft, but the F-16 was a dog, built for an obsolete mission (knife-fighting) that was purchased solely to appease political interests… which is why I’m against the Airbus."
Hence the saying: "Never bring an Airbus to a knife-fight!"
:D
That's a good point about the F-16 though-- it's a great dogfighter, just in case the Sidewinders and Sparrows linked to the radar systems don't do the trick!
The engineering fundamentals were good, but yeah, the major deal for the contract was to make a cheap adaptable JSF and then the USAF went one way and the USN the other, killing the economies and besides the F-15 Air superiority fighter turned out to be a decent MRCA too.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pmBelac, last note re the tanker deal...
March 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pmpolitics are and will be involved on both sides and if the primary requiremnt is to acuire an off-the-shelf airframe ( GOOD IDEA for ALL!) its still a choice between B (Boeing)or A (Airbus).
It just occured to me that the because of that equation and the politcs, this is no more a "competition" than,,,,than....its not a competition is it? LOL!
I agree- I just think that the Boeing proposal is a better deal in this case... and I think that the DoD was pressured to go with Airbus because it meant a black-eye for Patty Murray...
March 21st, 2008 at 7:20 pmbelac...
maybe so..
okay, onward and upward to other threads. It's been fun trading the merits of military-industrial complex products with you :D... a rare treat, we'll have to do it again :D
I'll close this topic with this:
Consolidated Vultee B-36 CONDOR: Did politics prevent it getting the TWO MORE ENGINES it REALLY needed to make it TOTALLY AWESOME?
later
March 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pmDang! I wish I could find an earlier article, I'll keep looking.
The gist of it was that one of the considerations involved the delivery date. Namely that the Northrop/EADS will be available sooner since it's, virtually, "off the shelf" and time has become a constraint due to accelerated airframe wear of existing transports and tankers. It seems that the Air Force wasn't planning on an indefinite commitment to an overseas occupation.
The same article also posited that the superior cargo capacity. of the Airbus, gained it some votes because the C-5's and C-17's are being worn out faster than expected. There's that pesky indefinite occupation again. Politics aside, it does appear the Airbus is a more versatile airframe and has more room for development despite it's airfield requirements.
As stated earlier, it's a very complex issue with plenty of room for shenanigans on both sides.
Also, virtually any plane can become a tanker. The Navy is going to use the F/A-18 "Super Hornet" to replace KA-6's and A-3's. The jury is still out as to how wise it is to use the, fuel hungry, supersonic Hornets as "heavy lifters".
March 21st, 2008 at 7:42 pmAgain pete-
March 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pmIf the military had wanted a bigger airplane with more cargo capability, Boeing was ready to offer the 777 as the tanker... but the DoD demurred... the F-18's are going to function like the A-4's in Vietnam, essentially the Navy wants to reduce the number of airframes on deck on their carriers...
For the stated mission of short/rough field performance and life-cycle operating costs the 767 is the better plane. And Boeing is operational now in Everett... all that needs to be finalized is the Witchita plant to add the fuel bladder and re-fueling station. But this is also almost complete because the Japanese SDF is buying the KC-767...
It's a political game.
No arguments here. I merely point out some of the other considerations. The 767 is an old design which has been "stretched" about as far as it can be while the 777 would entail a longer development program.
A couple more bits of info. The KC-45 order will not meet all the long term requirements so there is still a chance that Boeing will get the additional contracts. Maybe 767 (though the Air Force had better order before the line shuts down) maybe 777, maybe 787? Plus, the existing contract could be canceled.
All I'm saying is that it's a bit early to cry "foul", in spite of my own "America first" sentiments and distrust of anything McCain is attached to.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pmSo we criticize these contracts when they're no-bid, but when there's actual competition and a foreign company wins, we're upset about that also? What's wrong with this picture?
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 amLook at all these crybaby commies who are whining because France and Europe gained a market on a free capitalist trade system and with american employees.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 amI knew the USSA being communists, now with all these crybabies in this board I'm definitaly sure they are.
# thirdparty Says:
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 am
So we criticize these contracts when they’re no-bid, but when there’s actual competition and a foreign company wins, we’re upset about that also? What’s wrong with this picture?
We've been consistent in our opposition to outsourcing. We don't want a foreign company to win our jobs. Competition is fine with us, but keep the competition inside the United States. And it's not certain that it was the competition factor yanking the contract from Boeing, but McCain having undue influence on result.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 amfrenchpatriot Says:
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Look at all these crybaby commies who are whining because France and Europe gained a market on a free capitalist trade system and with american employees.
I knew the USSA being communists, now with all these crybabies in this board I’m definitaly sure they are.
You've discredited yourself with the first uttering of 'commie'.
You want a money-grubbing free market? Lobby for it with your own resources, within the confines of your own country, and not at the expense of American workers.
BTW, Free markets don't live up to the hype, neither does socially irresponsible capitalism.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 amyou've discredited yourself by wishing state companies contracts, you are a commie,plain and simple. why don't you nationalize boeing if you are afraid of free trade markets and capitalism bunch of commies?
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 amfrench patriot is right. Well, at least we discover that there are a few "progressives" that are as xenophobic and ignorant as Bush's redneck red-staters.
So, all these people want the Pentagon to buy an outmoded model which has much less of a cargo load than the Airbus and will be delivered at a trickle-down rate, probably well late even at that.
Of course that has been business as usual for decades. Even Dick Cheney, as secretary of defense in Bush I, wanted to cancel some defense purchases that weren't up to snuff.
Bravo for showing that American chauvinism is alive and well at both sides of the political spectrum.
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmthey should tell us in which companies are built most of the components of the 787 (wings,electronics etc...for helping the lazy commies, here a link : http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20070629/787assemblers.gif ) and according to the massive orders and the delays this plane will have , boeing will have to hire more than 40000 employees if beoing don't want to sink financially for not respecting the delays....and as these employees are not in the US, China or Europe will do the job...maybe in some Airbus plants or mebe in russian antonov plants!
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmAccording to DOD contracting rules, the EU is required to be considered equivalent to the US contractors. For good reason; we have won many contracts in the EU, and cannot expect them to buy from us if we do not reciprocate. This should not have been overlooked in the string above, unless ya'll wanted to be less than honest.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 amOver the past two days, the fawning American media has provided rave reviews of John McCain's visit to France. While the New York Times lauded "McCain's soothing tones," Time gushed about "McCain's Paris romance" and the transformation of Franco-American relations made possible by his warm embrace of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. But lost in these accounts is John McCain's vitriolic France-bashing in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Back in 2003, John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with the Paris-hating purveyors of "freedom fries" and "old Europe."
For the details, see:
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm"Fawning Media Ignores McCain's Past France-Bashing."
freedom fries....another example of the lack of culture, the Belgians will appreciate.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pmBTW I love to see all these french bashing imbeciles fall under the US laws for corruption and other reasons.
I was talking about some corrupted politicians like bob ney and other biased commentators accused of sexual harrassment
--
For Info, France isn't anti american, americans are anti-world and have betrayed all their friends, especially UK, it's a big difference
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 pmHigh Plains, FrenchPatriot, Bernarda, et al.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pmAgain- I'm not against competitive bidding or against the European manufacture of American Military hardware- read my posts...
I'm against this particular deal because the Airbus, while being almost a copy of the 767, is too big for the role that the military originally described.
The 777 was offered as an alternative to the A330 that was the only plane that EADS offered- the military demurred and then said the 767 was too small...
Something stinks and it's this- AL is red, WA is Blue and that's why AL and EADS got the contract... the rest is bull.
Hopefully the Democrats make this into an advertising campaign.
Actually, I wonder why the Democrats are not yet running ads introducing America to the real John McCain. They need to get started now. It takes dell latitude d800 battery,dell inspiron 5000 battery a while to “catapult the propaganda” as Bush says.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:42 am