PDA

View Full Version : Big US Military Contract Goes To Europe




angelatc
03-01-2008, 12:15 AM
Air tanker deal provokes US row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272272.stm


(I thought the depreciating dollar was supposed to bring these jobs back???)


Boeing's loss of a $40bn contract to build a new in-flight refuelling aircraft for the US military has drawn angry protests in Congress.

Lawmakers from Washington state and Kansas, which have big Boeing plants, voiced "outrage" that it had gone to a consortium including Europe's Airbus.

The planes will be assembled in Alabama but constructed largely in Europe.

Boeing has said it is awaiting an explanation from the military before deciding whether or not to appeal.

We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military
Statement by congressional lawmakers from the Seattle area

The new aircraft, named the KC-45A by the US Air Force, is based on the Airbus A330 and will be manufactured in partnership with US defence firm Northrop Grumman.

Its job will be to refuel the vast array of US warplanes and the contract is worth in the region of $40bn over 15 years.

It is a huge blow for Boeing, the BBC's Vincent Dowd reports from Washington.

America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.

'Outsourcing'

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

In Everett, Washington state, a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers" and "Our military deserves the best".

Congressional lawmakers from the state's Seattle area issued a joint statement condemning the "outsourcing" of the contract.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," they said.

Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Wichita, Kansas, called for "an American tanker built by an American company with American workers".

"I hope the Air Force reverses its decision," he added.

But the news was a boon for Alabama Republican congressman Jo Bonner.

"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refuelling tanker - a tanker assembled in America by Americans," he said.

The deal will also safeguard thousands of British aviation jobs, the BBC's Andy Moore says. Wings will be made at factories in Bristol and in North Wales.

Breaking through

For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.

Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.

In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.

But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.

Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.

Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.

Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

Published: 2008/03/01 04:45:42 GMT

cageybee
03-01-2008, 12:25 AM
our greed is our enemy.

reaver
03-01-2008, 12:38 AM
Good for Alabama.

apc3161
03-01-2008, 12:56 AM
The job of our air force is to protect this country, not to stimulate our country. If EADS offers a better product, we should go with it.

clouds
03-01-2008, 01:16 AM
agreed.

Agent CSL
03-01-2008, 01:40 AM
Being that I live only a few miles from Boeing and Boeing-effected businesses, I am angered that they would let the deal go out of country. It's simply a sad day for the US. It's also going to put a lot of people's jobs and small businesses on the line here.

amy31416
03-01-2008, 09:05 AM
That's the same as cops having Jaguars over Chevy's or Fords. Not good.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-01-2008, 09:22 AM
This is the American government destroying the middle class, inching toward the NWO, and nothing less. The middle class is under attack and there is very little doubt OUR OWN government is leading the charge.

You neocons better get a brain, they are attacking you!

Time for Change
03-01-2008, 11:16 AM
isn't outsourcing the construction of a national defense machine a conflict of interest?
Think about it...SECURITY.
They bring in labor from god knows where, next thing you know, the plans are online, or worse, the machines are deliberately flawed.

This is bad news, very bad news.

This just proves that the interest of the US is no longer in the US.
We are being sucked into the one world government faster than one can imagine, and these idiots are praising it happening.
Selling out their country for paper money.

Sickening.

lbadragan
03-01-2008, 08:51 PM
This enraged me. I emailed both of my senators as soon as I heard this shocking news. It's one thing to allow people to outsource, afterall we are free. It's quite another thing for our own government - which WE pay - to outsource jobs and profits to foreigners. This makes me SICK.

unklejman
03-11-2008, 02:32 PM
You guys who are "enraged" and "angered" need to think this through. The planes will be assembled here in the U.S. In my area at that. It will bring much needed jobs here.

And if you think think that giving the contract to Boeing is more supporting of our economy, think again. Read this: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_05/b3969417.htm

Did you read that? China...

I thought every one here was about free open market and supply/demand? :rolleyes:

Nirvikalpa
03-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Honestly, though, Boeing isn't an American company anymore, either. Just like Ford, who is an 'American company' but most of their cars are made in Mexico. Boeing assembles planes out of parts from China, Japan, Mexico, etc.

We don't have any companies anymore, and that's what's wrong with America.

truelies
03-12-2008, 06:01 AM
..............The planes will be assembled here in the U.S. In my area at that. It will bring much needed jobs here.

...........................


Not so- a relatively minor modification of A330's flown in from France is all that will be done in Alabama.

constituent
03-12-2008, 06:18 AM
isn't outsourcing the construction of a national defense machine a conflict of interest?
Think about it...SECURITY.
They bring in labor from god knows where, next thing you know, the plans are online, or worse, the machines are deliberately flawed.

This is bad news, very bad news.

This just proves that the interest of the US is no longer in the US.
We are being sucked into the one world government faster than one can imagine, and these idiots are praising it happening.
Selling out their country for paper money.

Sickening.

you think the m-i complex in america is any better about these sorts of things?


also, it's my understanding that a good degree of the product's manufacturing will be done in the united states, no?

it's also my understanding that boeing has many operations outsourced to "foreign" countries... is that not correct?

what's the difference?

one built an aircraft better suited to the purpose than the other?

then i'm glad they made the choice they did.

though honestly, if they can't get there on a tank of gas, they've
got no business there in the first place...

i say no refueling tankers... but whatever.

constituent
03-12-2008, 06:21 AM
Honestly, though, Boeing isn't an American company anymore, either. Just like Ford, who is an 'American company' but most of their cars are made in Mexico. Boeing assembles planes out of parts from China, Japan, Mexico, etc.

We don't have any companies anymore, and that's what's wrong with America.

exactly.

though i don't think a lack of manufacturing jobs is that terrible a thing.


not wrong, just different.

mankind is moving forward, there are no two ways around that.
industry will reflect this progress.

i see a lack of industrial buildings and manufacturing jobs as a move
in the right direction.

kimo
03-12-2008, 06:31 AM
I posted yesterday an interesting analysis made by Spiegel correspondents. You can read it here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127763

HOLLYWOOD
03-12-2008, 11:39 AM
American Attention Spans are short and forget...

This $40 BILLION contract award is for the EU's suppport and participation of the MIDDLE EAST NONSENSE for the past 5 years... look at this as WAR REPARATIONS.

1.) conflict of interest, but touting the US Corporation vs. the Global Corporation with US offices and subsidiaries is the "NEW" LOOPHOLE

2.) no NEW military contract should be given to a foreign corporations, etc...

3.) Why are we even SPENDING on a entirely NEW USAF Tanker? It's a flying GAS STATION!!! Use all the mothballed; MD-11s, DC-10s, 747s, 757s, 767, L-1011s, etc etc...

4.) THIS CONTRACT SHOULD BE CANCELLED and AWARDED to NONE... Use existing aircraft retrofitted!

yongrel
03-12-2008, 11:51 AM
This is not surprising. The whole reason the Air Force decided to go out of country was because Boeing shat the bed. Boeing is still two or three years late in delivering similar planes to their other customers. Why would the Air Force want to have to wait 5 years after delivery date to actually get the planes?

acptulsa
03-12-2008, 12:05 PM
That's the same as cops having Jaguars over Chevy's or Fords. Not good.

Until recently Jag was owned by Ford and the cop's new (again) darling Dodge was owned by Benz. Boeing will outsource many components if they build them. The major question is do we want the designers to be American more than anything else. Doesn't bode well for our security if we have to import our weapon designs.

Yes, yongrel, Boeing did it to themselves. They did it to themselves because they figured we'd never buy weapons systems from Airbus, even if they are only flying gas stations. They figured they were in a position to screw us as soon as we were apathetic and stupid enough not to object when they took over McDonnell Douglas, creating a monopoly.

Other aircraft manufacturers could have merged with ailing Douglas. The neocons told the public there was nothing to worry about and the public went back to sleep. Pity.

unklejman
03-12-2008, 09:23 PM
There is a lot of mis-information around this so please please read this:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080310_043966.htm

First of all Northrop Grumman is an AMERICAN company. Airbus is one of their contractors and they will use one of their air frames. I actually agree Hollywood that we should just retrofit our old planes, but I don't know the details behind the reasons.

Boeing's proposed tanker includes parts manufactured in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and Italy.

The Northrop Grumman KC-45A will include approximately 60 percent U.S. content.

The F-35 is being jointly developed between 8 other foreign companies. No one talks about that.

unklejman
03-12-2008, 09:33 PM
Not so- a relatively minor modification of A330's flown in from France is all that will be done in Alabama.

Well that minor modification requires building a new plant and 1500 new jobs.

angelatc
03-12-2008, 09:40 PM
I thought every one here was about free open market and supply/demand? :rolleyes:

Not when it comes to military spending.

And that's just for starts. We are *not* globalists.

angelatc
03-12-2008, 10:00 PM
exactly.

though i don't think a lack of manufacturing jobs is that terrible a thing.


not wrong, just different.

mankind is moving forward, there are no two ways around that.
industry will reflect this progress.

i see a lack of industrial buildings and manufacturing jobs as a move
in the right direction.

We can't survive serving hamburgers to each other. No manufacturing makes us dependent on other countries, wastes our natural resources, and destroys the middle class.

Thinking that we can design here and let Asia build it is naive.

unklejman
03-13-2008, 02:41 PM
Not when it comes to military spending.

And that's just for starts. We are *not* globalists.

Boeing outsources as much as Grumman...